ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Serious and Organised Crime

Andrew Stephenson: What assessment she has made of the effect of serious and organised crime on communities.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What assessment she has made of the effect of serious and organised crime on communities.

Theresa May: Serious and organised crime has a damaging and corrosive impact on communities across the United Kingdom. This includes violence, drugs trafficking, fraud, modern slavery and child sexual exploitation. Reducing the effects of these crimes and bringing the perpetrators to justice is why I launched a comprehensive new strategy and a powerful new crime-fighting organisation, the National Crime Agency, in October 2013.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Last month, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims visited Brierfield in my constituency to meet the local police and learn about their success in tackling organised crime in Pendle. Will my right hon. Friend offer assurances of her Department’s continued support for protecting communities such as Brierfield from serious and organised crime?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Protecting communities lies at the heart of how we want to deal with serious and organised crime. We work with a range of partners to ensure that we tailor our response to the needs of individual communities such as Brierfield. We are also ensuring that every possible avenue is taken to deal with serious and organised crime. Lancashire police’s Operation Genga is bringing together about 20 local organisations to address the issue, and it is a very good example of the benefits that can be achieved through such a partnership approach.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What actions is my right hon. Friend taking to seize more of the proceeds of organised crime?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. Criminals pursue criminal activities for profit, and by seizing their assets we can have a significant impact on them. We have set out in the serious and organised crime strategy our approach for attacking criminal finances. We want to make it harder for criminals to move, hide or access the proceeds of crime. The criminal finances board, overseen by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), oversees cross-departmental work to improve performance on accessing and recovering assets. We are also taking extra powers in the Serious Crime Bill, which has already started its passage in another place, to make it easier for us to get hold of criminals’ assets.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Home Secretary say why the number of arrests based on Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre intelligence on serious, organised child abuse has gone down in the past year?

Theresa May: CEOP is an important part of our panoply of organisations that are dealing with various aspects of serious and organised crime. Bringing CEOP into the National Crime Agency was right because it now has access to the agency’s capabilities, but it is important that CEOP continues to have access to a range of capabilities. Sadly, one of the issues that has been raised is the extent to which it can continue to have access to things such as communications data. As that degrades, of course, it becomes harder for CEOP to investigate certain crimes.

Barry Sheerman: The Home Secretary will also know that much serious and organised crime is related to fraud. Is she not worried that many people, both outside and inside this House, are saying that the Serious Fraud Office is not fit for purpose, is not resourced enough and depends on advice given by the big accountancy firms? Everyone is saying that we need a powerful Serious Fraud Office. Does she agree that it needs reforming?

Theresa May: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to ensure that we have strong capability for dealing with fraud. That is precisely why I wanted the National Crime Agency to have an economic crime command, which it does. That economic crime command will be looking at a variety of economic and financial crimes. Fraud will, of course, be key within that. It will also look at other issues such as money laundering. That is also why we have changed our approach to the reporting of fraud such that we are now better able to capture incidents of fraud through Action Fraud. We have ensured that the capabilities of City of London police, given its expertise in that area, are fully available. Of course we need a strong Serious Fraud Office, but we also want that strength in the economic crime command within the National Crime Agency.

Passport Office

Pat Glass: What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the Passport Office.

Ian Murray: When she next plans to meet the chief executive of the Passport Office.

Heidi Alexander: What recent estimate she has made of the time taken to process passport applications.

James Brokenshire: Since January, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been dealing with a higher demand for passports than for the same period over the last 12 years. The overwhelming majority of straightforward applications continue to be dealt with within three or four weeks, but we recognise that some people are waiting too long. A package of additional measures has been introduced to help HMPO deliver passports on time while still maintaining security. Ministerial colleagues and I are meeting the chief executive of HMPO on a regular basis.

Pat Glass: Back in the real world, the situation is unfortunately getting far worse, not better. My office dealt with 17 urgent inquiries last week and has already received three this morning, including that of my constituent Andy Sheen, who has been waiting since May for a
	renewed passport for his two children. When can my constituents and others hope to have anything like a normal service again?

James Brokenshire: The Passport Office has introduced a number of measures and is increasing the number of passports being dealt with each week. I recognise that right hon. and hon. Members are raising individual cases, which is why we have strengthened the MPs’ service and put in place the seven-day upgrade arrangements so that passports can be delivered to people who need to travel.

Ian Murray: Over 40 constituents have come to me about late passport applications. It is not just about their passports; it is about their family holidays and individual holidays this summer. Surely the Minister should have foreseen these problems, given the massive increase in foreign applications. What percentage is due to the massive increase in foreign applications and what will he do to ensure that this does not happen again?

James Brokenshire: The pressure has been the result of a significant increase in domestic applications. The forecasting that HMPO has undertaken, and its expectation, is that it is domestic applications that have really added to the pressure and led to the highest level of applications in 12 years. Clearly we are focused on those individual cases, which is why additional resources have been put into examination, but there is also the specific measure, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned, to ensure that there is a focus on those who need their passports to travel and to go on their holidays.

Heidi Alexander: My constituent Ms Papafio-Gordon is today celebrating her 21st birthday, but she faces the prospect of not being able to go on holiday tomorrow because of delays in renewing her passport. She has already had to cancel two holidays. She booked tomorrow’s flights only after being told that her passport would be couriered to her home yesterday, but it never arrived. Will the Minister look into the case to ensure that my constituent, on her third attempt, can go on holiday tomorrow?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady raises an individual case. I know how hard Passport Office personnel are working to ensure that passports are delivered on time to enable people to travel. If she gives me the details of her constituent’s case, obviously I will look into it.

Richard Fuller: May I commend the staff of the Passport Office for dealing with constituents from Bedford and Kempston who have had passport difficulties, and the Minister for his calm handling of the issue. When looking forward on the handling of passports, will he consider advising people a year early that their passports are due to expire so that they can renew them without having to wait until the last minute?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the incredible work being undertaken in passport offices up and down the country to meet this exceptional demand. Clearly we will reflect carefully on a range of issues once we get through this exceptionally
	busy period to see where further improvements can be made and to ensure that service is improved further in the years ahead.

Caroline Dinenage: I, too, would like to draw attention to the service that my office has received from HMPO, whose staff have been incredibly courteous and helpful in difficult circumstances. It is important that long-term lessons are learnt. Will the Minister assure the House that the review of operating procedures will focus on improving efficiency and ensuring that customer service is at the heart of all HMPO activities in future?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point about focusing on customers and further improving operating procedures. A real focus will be put on that once we have managed this period of excessive demand. Indeed, with regard to forecasting, we are bringing in the Home Office’s scientific lead to examine those projections as well as ensuring that any changes that can be made to improve performance will be made.

Alan Reid: It is important that we learn the lessons and improve the operation of the Passport Office, but I want to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and to the staff of the Passport Office for going the extra mile to ensure that all the constituents who came to me received their passports in time to travel, including arranging for them to be couriered to those who live in remote locations.

James Brokenshire: It is worth recognising that many people working in the Passport Office are going the extra mile to see that people are receiving their passports in time for travel. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to highlight the exceptional work that is being undertaken in passport offices.

David Hanson: On 8 June, the number of passports classed as “work in progress” stood at 493,289. Figures I have obtained show that two weeks after the emergency measures were brought in by the Government, on 22 June, the figure stood at 537,663. Will the Minister update the House on whether the “work in progress” figure is less than when he introduced the initial emergency measures?

James Brokenshire: This is an exceptional period of demand. To put this into context, the Passport Office would usually handle about 5.5 million applications per year, and this year it has received about 4 million applications already. That gives some context to the work that is involved. “Work in progress” figures will run into hundreds of thousands because of the output that the Passport Office is delivering—about 170,000 a week. That gives a sense of the scale of the work that is involved. Yes, there are pressures there, but the Passport Office is responding to the challenge.

Richard Graham: What matters when Departments miss their targets is how everybody reacts, and the Home Secretary and Ministers have reacted with energy and determination to resolve this problem. May I thank the Passport Office, which so far, even though it has been a close-run thing in several
	cases, has managed to resolve 100% of my constituents’ problems so that they can travel on time? Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking my constituents for their patience and my constituency office for its resilience in making sure that so far everybody has got away on time?

James Brokenshire: I am pleased to give that recognition to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and, of course, constituents across the country who are working with HMPO to see that issues are resolved. We have put additional measures in place to assist colleagues from across the House with their individual inquiries, recognising the need to ensure that passports can be delivered to enable people to travel on their holidays.

Counter-terrorism Strategy

Adrian Bailey: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy; and if she will make a statement.

James Brokenshire: Today marks the ninth anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings. I am sure the whole House will wish to convey our thoughts and prayers to those who lost friends and loved ones on that day and remember how we must remain vigilant against those who threaten our country and our way of life. Contest, the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, has been effective in reducing the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism. The number of successful prosecutions and foiled plots over the past year demonstrates the skill, dedication and professionalism of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and security and intelligence agencies in meeting that challenge.

Adrian Bailey: May I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences for those who lost their lives during that atrocity, and others as well?
	Community engagement and peer pressure are essential if we are to curb the recruitment of jihadists to the Syrian conflict. Why have the Government cut funding to the Prevent project, which is designed to do this, and to the groups carrying it out?

James Brokenshire: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s rightful focus on the need for strong community engagement. The Prevent programme is about seeking to prevent people from becoming involved in terrorism, with measures that are able to channel individuals towards programmes that might take them off that course. However, he misunderstands the fact that the Government undertook a clear separation between broader integration work and Prevent, with its specific focus on counter-terrorism. It was right to have that focus and to ensure that actions and programmes were not misinterpreted as being about involvement in or prevention of terrorism rather than community integration.

Mark Reckless: It was reported this weekend that MI5 could have stopped Michael Adebolajo committing murder if it had more powers. Is the Minister aware that when the Home Affairs Committee was in Kenya, senior ambassadors at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told us that in all
	likelihood he would have been in prison in Kenya had it not been for the UK authorities requesting that he be returned to this country?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, the Intelligence and Security Committee is currently completing its review of the investigations related to that case, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further in that regard. The Home Affairs Committee has conducted a broad review of counter-terrorism powers—indeed, I gave evidence to it. Clearly, we keep powers under review, and we have sought to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for a number of terrorism offences in relation to the Serious Crime Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

Stephen Doughty: I also associate myself with the Minister’s initial comments. He and the Home Secretary will be aware that a number of organisations that operate in Cardiff have recently been proscribed. Will the Minister clarify the names of those organisations and outline how he intends to ensure that individuals involved in them do not simply rebrand themselves and go under other organisational names in the future? They are not welcome in Cardiff by either the Muslim community or the wider community.

James Brokenshire: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I know of the work he is undertaking locally in Cardiff in combating extremism and ensuring that community groups are brought together to confront it. We have made further changes to proscription in terms of aliases related to al-Muhajiroun, and have added the names of other terrorist organisations. We will keep that focus and keep the issue under review. Obviously, the police are also looking at whether there are prosecution opportunities.

Crispin Blunt: Although I would be the first to commend the leadership and oversight exercised on this policy by my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary, none of it would have been possible without the exceptional contribution of a very talented team of officials across all Departments, including the Ministry of Justice, where I used to work with Michael Spurr and his team on security. The United Kingdom is lucky enough to have world-leading, quality officials and insight in this area. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would confirm that and put it on the record.

James Brokenshire: I am delighted to confirm that. Obviously, there are many people who work hard, day in, day out, to keep our country safe, and it is right that they are commended.

Keith Vaz: It was reported yesterday that 16-year-old twins from Manchester may have flown to Syria in order to join ISIS. So far, 500 British citizens have gone to Syria to fight. On Wednesday, the Muslim Council of Britain will hold a meeting with all Islamic scholars throughout the United Kingdom to look at the issue of engagement with communities. What further steps do the Government propose to take to deal with those who seek to lure our young British citizens to fight abroad, especially with regard to the internet?

James Brokenshire: A number of steps have been taken. There has been real leadership in a number of quarters in British Muslim society, which is very welcome. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the issue of the internet. I draw to the House’s attention the fact that the counter-terrorism internet referral unit has now taken down 40,000 items from the web that are illegal or promote terrorism. It is important that we retain that focus.

Diana Johnson: On this day, it is absolutely right that we remember those killed or injured on 7/7. On counter-terrorism work today, allegations are being reported that AY —previously on a control order and then a terrorism prevention and investigation measure order that lapsed—is now freely recruiting and radicalising young men to go to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS. Given the potential security threat of those men returning to the United Kingdom, does the Minister still believe that the TPIM orders that he introduced are fit for purpose?

James Brokenshire: Yes, I do. We have some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with terrorist suspects, and we will not hesitate in using every power at our disposal to protect the security of this country. Clearly, if there is evidence that people are engaged in terrorist-related activity, the police will investigate and take action.

Reducing Crime Levels

Lorraine Fullbrook: What steps she is taking to further assist the police in reducing the level of crime.

Damian Green: We have freed the police from central targets, and police and crime commissioners are addressing the issues that matter to local people. We are cutting bureaucracy so that officers can be at the front line where they are needed, and the College of Policing is driving up professional standards. We are working with forces to tackle national priorities such as organised crime, gangs, modern slavery and violence against women and girls. The evidence is clear—police reform is working and crime is down.

Lorraine Fullbrook: The Minister will be aware that crime in Lancashire has been cut by 10%, but there is some variation in overall levels of crime across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the police need to be more innovative and to share best practice right across the country in cutting crime and keeping our streets safer?

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose point about innovation is correct. That is precisely why we have introduced an innovation fund, which all forces have bid for. She will be aware from last year’s precursor fund that Lancashire successfully bid for the collaboration we want—a joint initiative with Lancashire county council to create an early action response service for missing people, vulnerable people and those with mental health issues. That is precisely the innovative collaboration that will enable crime to continue to fall.

Lucy Powell: Did the Minister see the comments made recently by the Police Federation in Manchester about the city centre of Manchester being a dangerous place? Will he take this opportunity to agree with me that Greater Manchester police and the city council work very effectively to keep the streets of Manchester safe, and will he assure the House that GMP will have all the resources it needs to do just that job?

Damian Green: I agree that Greater Manchester police is doing a very good job, as, indeed, the figures show: crime in Greater Manchester is down 24% since 2010. It is the use of the resources available to Sir Peter Fahy and his force that will continue to make Manchester safer than it has been before.

Nigel Adams: The police in North Yorkshire, and in Selby in particular, are innovative, especially about rural crime. I am pleased that crime is falling there, but the planned closure of Selby’s police custody suite could have an adverse impact on policing in the district. Having to take those arrested all the way to York could take two bobbies off the beat in Selby, leaving the town exposed. Although the decision could save tens of thousands of pounds, does the Minister agree that it is a short-sighted move, and will he urge the chief constable to rethink?

Damian Green: The decision to close the custody suite at Selby was first taken in 2000, under the previous Government, and it has been a source of some controversy ever since. The custody suite was reopened, but, as my hon. Friend says, the chief constable has now decided to close it again. I would be very happy to look at the case, and to discuss it with the police and crime commissioner.

Jack Dromey: The Home Secretary introduced police and crime commissioners. Tragically, Bob Jones, the PCC for the west midlands, died last week. He was an outstanding champion of all that is best in British policing, and a man of great personal integrity. He has yet to be buried, but the Home Secretary’s legislation obliges a by-election to be held on 21 August. How much will a by-election for an electorate of 2 million cost, and does he anticipate a turnout higher or lower than the 13% who elected Bob Jones?

Damian Green: I absolutely echo the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Bob Jones, who gave his life to public service over many decades. He held his beliefs very strongly, and he expressed them very strongly. My condolences and those of the home affairs team go to his wife, and his friends and family.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a by-election is triggered by two people calling it. He will also be aware that, frankly, it was not done at the behest of either his party or mine. I take the point that the by-election will take place in the middle of August. It is therefore the responsibility of all politicians—particularly, I should say, of Members of Parliament in the west midlands—to ensure that people get out and vote. As people now realise, the police and crime commissioner is an important post, and it is important that the people of the west midlands have a say in who the next police and crime commissioner is.

Mr Speaker: It is always helpful if answers are comprehensive, but they do not have to include the kitchen sink.

Neighbourhood Policing

Andy Slaughter: What assessment she has made of the effect of recent changes in the level of neighbourhood policing.

Damian Green: The Government strongly support neighbourhood policing. It provides a visible presence in communities, cutting crime and disorder. By slashing red tape and sweeping away central targets, we have empowered chief constables and police and crime commissioners to respond to the individual and specific needs of their communities. Police reform is working. Crime is down by more than 10% since June 2010, and victim satisfaction is up.

Andy Slaughter: However the Minister dresses it up, in wards where there used to be six neighbourhood officers, there are now two. Consequently, my constituents feel less safe. Antisocial behaviour and crime are actually going up in areas such as Shepherd’s Bush and White City. May we have safer neighbourhood teams back? We need preventive, rather than reactive, local policing.

Damian Green: I feel that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from hearing some of the facts about what is happening. Across the Metropolitan police, there are 2,600 more police officers in neighbourhood teams to boost local policing. Specifically in Hammersmith and Fulham, the number of officers in the borough will have increased between October 2011 and 2015. Very specifically, there will be an increase of 92 officers in the safer neighbourhood teams he values so much. That is why crime in London generally and Hammersmith specifically has been falling.

Jake Berry: I know that my right hon. Friend will be aware, not least because it was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions last week, of the death of Cherylee Shennan in my constituency. I want to put on the record my thoughts about Detective Sergeant Damien McAlister and Detective Constable Karen Kenworthy, both of whom were severely injured in an attempt to save Cherylee’s life, and give him the opportunity to echo them. They serve as a constant reminder to everyone in this House of the danger that police officers put themselves in every day to keep us and our streets safe.

Damian Green: I am sure that the whole House will echo my hon. Friend’s sentiment about those officers. Damien McAlister and Karen Kenworthy showed the bravery that we get from officers all over the country in the most difficult of situations. Such bravery is essential, particularly in tragic situations such as the one he mentions, and it should never go without being noticed.

Organised Sexual Abuse of Children

Duncan Hames: What steps she has taken to co-ordinate lessons learnt across Government from investigations into organised sexual abuse of children.

Norman Baker: The national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I chair, is already delivering a number of significant improvements to our response to child sex abuse, including addressing lessons learned from the investigations and inquiries into historical and organised child sexual abuse. The Home Secretary will make a statement on child abuse immediately after this session.

Duncan Hames: I appreciate the Minister’s efforts in this regard. When the Prime Minister said in answer to my question last month that he was happy to look at the case for an independent inquiry, I was optimistic. We may not have long to wait now. The Government set great store by the police investigations. Does the Minister share my dismay at reports that the Metropolitan police has assigned only seven officers to Operation Fernbridge?

Norman Baker: That is an operational matter for the police, rather than a matter for Ministers. However, we take these matters extremely seriously and all Ministers have made it plain that we expect the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others to take all the necessary steps to bring those who are responsible for heinous crimes to justice.

Simon Danczuk: Brave survivors of child sex abuse have done a fantastic job of lobbying on this issue over the past week. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister satisfied that the victims of child sex abuse are receiving all the support that they should be receiving from policing and health bodies?

Norman Baker: We published a new victims code in December 2013, which sets out the entitlements of victims of the most serious crimes. Other steps are being taken, such as the videoed pre-trial cross-examination pilot, to ensure that we make it as easy as possible for children to give evidence and to ensure that they are not re-traumatised by the process.

Tim Loughton: This question would more normally be heard at Education questions because tackling child abuse is about not just detecting crime but prevention, education and safeguarding children. Will the Minister say what arrangements exist for the Department for Education to co-ordinate that action?

Norman Baker: As the former Minister for children knows, there are existing and strong links between various Departments, including the Department for Education and the Department of Health, to ensure that such matters are dealt with on a cross-departmental basis. We intend to continue and strengthen those links between Departments.

Meg Munn: The National Association for People Abused in Childhood is finding an increased demand for its support and help. It has written to the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to ask for greater support and services to help those who are coming forward with cases from many years ago, with all the problems that they have experienced as a result. Will the Government do more to ensure that those services are in place?

Norman Baker: The Minister with responsibility for policing and victims will respond to the letter as soon as he can, if he has not done so already. The fact that these matters are receiving extra coverage these days, and the fact that the Government has made it very clear that we take these matters seriously, is encouraging people to come forward, including those with historical allegations, and that is exactly right. We expect the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate them properly.

Terrorism

Mark Pritchard: If she will bring forward legislative proposals to criminalise the non-reporting by family members of their reasonable suspicions of other family members travelling abroad for purposes of terrorism.

James Brokenshire: We want to support communities to respond to the challenge of preventing terrorism, and to encourage them to refer individuals who may be at risk of radicalisation and exploitation. Prevent practitioners, working with local authorities, the police and other agencies, are providing outreach and targeted projects. We believe this offers the most effective approach.

Mark Pritchard: Of course, not all family members will know whether members of their family have gone abroad to prepare for acts of terrorism, but some will. For the sake of social cohesion, community cohesion and national security, will the Minister seriously consider bringing forward new legislation to keep this country safe?

James Brokenshire: We keep legislation under review, as I have already indicated this afternoon. It is already an offence, under the Terrorism Act 2000, to fail to disclose information about acts of terrorism. Many families have come forward to identify those who might be travelling to Syria. It is important that we support them and encourage others to report loved ones as well.

Kate Green: My Muslim constituents report that public discourse about terrorism and security threats is beginning to create a climate of suspicion and hostility towards them in the community. What can the Minister do to ensure that, alongside protecting public security, attention is paid to community cohesion and harmony?

James Brokenshire: I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point. Indeed, that is why we work on social cohesion with the Department for Communities and Local Government. Some fantastic British Muslims are demonstrating leadership, showing that they oppose so much extremism that is done in their name but does not reflect their communities or their religion. We continue to work with them to promote those very clear messages.

Modern Slavery

Andrew Jones: What steps she is taking to end modern slavery.

Theresa May: The Government have made much progress in tackling this horrendous crime. Our ground-breaking Modern Slavery Bill will have its Second Reading tomorrow in this House. Later this year, we will publish a modern slavery strategy, which will co-ordinate a comprehensive programme of national and international activity. It will include: the national referral mechanism review, which will report its interim findings shortly; child trafficking advocate trails, which will launch in the summer; and establishing specialist teams at the border.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate her on introducing the Bill, the first of its kind in the world to tackle this disgusting crime. Does she agree that it is important to work with businesses to tackle this part of the problem by eliminating forced labour from supply chains?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is absolutely vital that we work with business on the issue of forced labour and slavery in supply chains, which is why I hosted a round table recently with representatives of business organisations and individual businesses, together with other Ministers, including the Under-Secretary with responsibility for modern slavery and organised crime. We are doing a great deal with businesses to help to raise awareness so we can prevent people from being abused and exploited. Of course, companies have a social responsibility to take appropriate action. If they do not, their reputations will suffer.

Julie Hilling: Two thirds of the children identified and found as trafficking victims by the authorities go missing again. Will the Home Secretary legislate for a guardian for each of these children, to keep them safe and to act in their best interests?

Theresa May: We are trialling the child advocate concept in a number of ways in the coming months. We have made it absolutely clear that, through the Modern Slavery Bill, we will provide for the opportunity to put it on a statutory basis. I hope everybody in this House would want us to use the work of those trials to identify the best approach to take in relation to individuals, whatever their title, who work with trafficked children, to take them through and to help to give them the support they need. We need to ensure that we find and take forward the best approach.

Nicola Blackwood: Does the Home Secretary agree that the trafficking prevention orders included in the Modern Slavery Bill will be a valuable tool for police seeking to disrupt trafficking gangs? What discussions has her Department had with police on the practical implementation of the orders?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the police welcomed the concept of prevention orders that we are putting in place through the Bill. She is absolutely right: crucially, the prevention orders will enable us to ensure that action can be taken against someone who has been convicted of an offence of modern slavery so that we can reduce the possibility of that offence being recommitted. Up until now, it has been possible for
	someone who has served a sentence for such an offence to come straight back out, become a gangmaster and carry on with what they were doing in the first place. The prevention orders will enable us to prevent that from happening.

Migration (EU Accessions)

Stephen Phillips: What representations she has received on the potential effect on UK migration figures of further EU accessions.

Karen Bradley: Representations about EU migration often focus on the large inflows from existing member states since 2004, and we have been clear that, unlike the previous Government, we will always impose the toughest possible transitional controls on free movement from new member states.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful for that answer. The simple fact of the matter, as my hon. Friend knows, is that the last Government totally underestimated both the number of migrants from newly entered countries who have made their way to the United Kingdom and the impact of that on the tolerance of ordinary, hard-working British people when it comes to immigration. Does the Minister agree with me—if so, she can tell us—that if further countries join the EU we must put in place measures that slow access to labour markets unless and until we can be sure that the vast migrations of the past simply cannot happen again?

Karen Bradley: My hon. and learned Friend puts it more succinctly than anybody could, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been absolutely clear that there will be new arrangements for future accessions to slow access to labour markets until we can be sure that they will not lead to mass migration.

Cyber-crime

Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to combat cyber-crime; and if she will make a statement.

Karen Bradley: Cybercrime is a tier 1 threat to national security. We have strengthened law enforcement capabilities with the establishment of the national cybercrime unit in the National Crime Agency, and by establishing cyber-teams within each of the regional organised crime units, as well as by developing the capability of local police forces. We are also funding the Cyber Streetwise campaign, and Action Fraud’s reporting system for fraud or financially motivated cybercrime.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer. A friend of mine tells me that a well-known retailer was recently attacked from abroad four times in as many weeks by a cyber organisation.

Chris Bryant: John Lewis.

Michael Fabricant: I think the hon. Gentleman might have guessed it right. What steps is the Minister taking to stop such foreign cyber-attacks on legitimate companies in the United Kingdom?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He perfectly sums up the threats we in the UK face from cyber-attacks on businesses and public services. Working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Home Office is involved in the cybercrime reduction partnership, and we have set up CERT-UK, the computer emergency response team, which includes CISP—the Cyber-Security Information Sharing Partnership—through which businesses can share their experiences of cyber-attacks.

Seema Malhotra: According to Which?, the average amount lost by people because of scams, including online scams, is £1,500, and online shopping scams are by far the most likely to fool people. The Home Affairs Select Committee has expressed concern that there appears to be a black hole where low-level e-crime is committed with impunity. What impact does the Minister believe the initiatives she has announced are having, and what more can the Home Office do to raise awareness of e-crime for our citizens?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady makes an important point—that we need to raise awareness and to make sure that people know where they can report cybercrime. Action Fraud, which I visited last week when it was hosted by the City of London police, is the portal through which people can report cyber-attacks. That is where information will be disseminated and intelligence shared, ensuring that local police forces have the information and intelligence they need to be able to act against this crime.

Stephen Mosley: Chief Constable Alex Marshall, head of the College of Policing, recently said on BBC Radio 4’s “Law in Action” programme that “at least half” of calls to front-line police officers originated from complaints about social media. What is my hon. Friend and the Government doing to make sure that police officers at all levels have the skills necessary to tackle online crime?

Karen Bradley: It is vital to ensure that police officers and local forces understand how to tackle cybercrime and where to report it, and I am very pleased that the College of Policing is providing training for all officers so that they know what to do. As I have said, Action Fraud and other online databases are available, and I know that the police are making sure that they gather the information and share the intelligence.

Steve Reed: Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary has reported that only three police forces in England and Wales have an effective cyber-attack strategy, and that although reported cybercrime is up by about a quarter, the number of prosecutions is down? Why has she allowed that to happen?

Karen Bradley: The Government take cybercrime extremely seriously. That is why it is a tier 1 national security risk. We have invested £860 million in the national cyber-security strategy, and have so far committed
	£70 million to the national cyber-security policy to build law enforcement capabilities. It is vital for training to be provided, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred represents a view of, as it were, a “snapshot” taken some time ago. We have been working very closely with, in particular, the National Crime Agency to ensure that the issue is addressed and training is given.

Illegal Immigration

Andrew Selous: What steps she is taking to reduce illegal immigration.

James Brokenshire: In every year of this Government, more illegal migrants have left the UK than in any year under the last Government. The Immigration Act 2014 is the latest step in this Government’s reforms, ensuring that there is a tough response to those who abuse the system or flout the law.

Andrew Selous: When immigrants are told that they have no legal basis on which to stay in the United Kingdom and should make arrangements to leave, how long is it before the Home Office takes steps to ensure that they do, and what do those measures involve?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, we have established immigration enforcement and special command in the Home Office to focus rigorously on ensuring that such people are removed. However, as the Immigration Act makes clear, it is also necessary to create a system that makes it that much tougher for those people to gain access to benefits, and ensures that they are supported so that they are able to leave. That is a focus that the Government will continue to maintain.

Topical Questions

Kerry McCarthy: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: I echo the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I too was deeply saddened to hear of the death of West Midlands police and crime commissioner Bob Jones, and my thoughts and prayers are with Bob’s family and friends and his colleagues. He had given years of public service as a councillor, a member of the West Midlands police authority for more than 25 years, and then as the area’s first police and crime commissioner, and his contribution to keeping the people of the west midlands safe was very impressive. I know that he will be greatly missed.
	Last week I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories to meet senior politicians from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. During my visit, the bodies of the three abducted teenagers were discovered near Hebron. Since then, we have also heard about the terrible killing of a Palestinian teenager. No reason, belief or cause can justify the abduction and killing of innocent civilians.
	In spite of that harrowing news, I was able to hold encouraging discussions on how best to combat modern slavery as part of our efforts to garner greater international co-operation on that important issue. Those discussions will feed into the substantial work that the Government are doing to stamp out the horrendous crime of modern slavery. As I said earlier, the Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill will be debated tomorrow, and the Bill’s progress will take place alongside the work that the Government are doing to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with this horrendous crime.

Kerry McCarthy: It is almost a year since my constituent Bijan Ebrahimi was horribly murdered, and we are still waiting for the results of the inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the involvement of the police in the days leading up to his death. As the Home Secretary will know, a separate IPCC inquiry is proceeding, and the chief constable is currently suspended. Can she assure me that the IPCC has been given all the resources that it needs to bring both inquiries to a speedy conclusion?

Theresa May: I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that as the cases that she has mentioned are live, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details. However, we are committed to ensuring that the IPCC has the resources that it needs to be able to investigate all serious and sensitive complaints against the police, and to carry out the rigorous scrutiny that the public expect. We have given the commission an extra £18 million and £10 million capital this year, so that it can deal with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say what steps she and her Department are taking to ensure the police use technology to a greater extent to improve their effectiveness?

Damian Green: We are taking a number of steps, because my hon. Friend is right that digital technology makes the police more effective, not just by giving them access to information out on the street so they can make better decisions, but by enabling them to stay out on the streets and not have to return to the station. I mentioned the innovation fund earlier. Over £11 million of its first £20 million was allocated to IT projects that give police precisely the sort of technology they need to keep crime coming down.

Yvette Cooper: First, may I welcome the Home Secretary’s words about her visit and about the terrible loss of young lives in the middle east, and also her tribute to Bob Jones, who, as she knows, was a very kind and thoughtful man as well as a great public servant, and is a friend who will be missed by very many of us?
	May I also join the counter-terrorism Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), in remembering the 52 people who were killed on 7 July 2005 and pay tribute to their families and also the 770 people injured that day? That is why the whole House and the whole country recognises the continued need for vigilance against terrorism and those who want to kill, maim or divide us.
	The Home Secretary will shortly outline her response to calls for action against historical child abuse, but let me ask her about the child protection system today. Since she changed the law, there has been a 75% drop in the number of people barred from working with children even though the number of offences against children has gone up. Why has it fallen so much, and is she worried about that?

Theresa May: There has, indeed, been a fall in the number of people who are automatically barred from working with children. That fall has taken place since 2010 because we did change the system: I think we restored some common sense to the barring regime, because the scheme is now focused on groups of people who work closely with children or other vulnerable groups. Unless they have committed the most serious offences, we no longer bar people who do not work with those groups, such as lorry drivers or bar staff. They were barred under the old scheme, and I do not think those bars did anything to help keep children safe, but anyone working closely with children is still barred and that is the important point.

Yvette Cooper: I have listened to the Home Secretary’s response and I have to say I find it very troubling. What is to stop a lorry driver who is convicted of a very serious offence applying to work with children or becoming a volunteer in the future? The figures show the numbers who have been barred have dropped from 11,000 to 2,600. That means there are people who have been convicted of sexually assaulting a child, possessing or distributing abusive images of children, grooming or trafficking who are not being barred from working with children in future, and there has also been a serious drop in the number of those who are barred on the basis of intelligence about grooming even where convictions have not been secured. I really would urge her to look again at this because I am concerned that this system is exposing children to risk.

Theresa May: We all want to ensure that the system we have makes sure that those who will be a risk to children are not able to work with children, but I repeat the point I made in response to the right hon. Lady’s first question: under the previous scheme a large number of people found themselves automatically barred who were not directly working with children and were not working closely with children. The new scheme that we have has, in fact, barred some people who would not have been barred under the old scheme. The Disclosure and Barring Service can now pick up and consider serious offences by those who apply for criminal records checks to work with children and those in the new update service, so I say to her that the scheme we have introduced does actually mean some who would not have been barred under the previous scheme are today barred from working with children.

Andrew Jones: The news of UK citizens becoming radicalised and then travelling abroad to participate in terrorism and conflicts is very worrying. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the Prevent strategy is being used to tackle the problem at source by stopping people being radicalised in the first place?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the concerns in many communities at how Prevent is acting to safeguard them by working with families, communities and, indeed, with those front-line agencies that may be best able to pick up when someone is being radicalised and exploited. That focus remains, as well as, obviously, seeking to work with the internet industry to take down images that are seeking to promote terrorism or radicalisation.

Bridget Phillipson: Over the past year I have been holding joint events with neighbourhood policing teams on dealing with antisocial behaviour, allowing constituents to share their concerns on a serious issue. Victims often report that they are left frustrated and concerned because despite the number of agencies involved, action is not always co-ordinated and progress can be slow. What will the Minister be doing about this?

Norman Baker: I refer the hon. Lady to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which does a great deal to improve matters and which I must say some of her colleagues opposed when it came before the House. It introduces a range of sensible, well-judged new powers that will enable some of the problems that have occurred locally to be diminished. The measures include cross-working between different bodies involved in crime prevention.

Mark Harper: The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims will know that the Independent police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire has taken the opportunity in both of the past two years to put up council tax by 2% rather than have a proper look for savings. Will the Minister, in a spirit of public service broadcasting, set out some areas where other police forces have taken the opportunity to keep council tax down?

Damian Green: Many police and crime commissioners across the country have taken different decisions about taxation, and across the country we have seen crime coming down. Of course the great virtue of the system we have introduced is that if people in Gloucestershire or anywhere else are unhappy with the decisions taken by their PCC, they can, unlike under the old system, vote in 2016 to get rid of them. That is why introducing democracy into police governance is a good thing.

Paul Blomfield: My constituent Peter Hobson works hard, but earning the minimum wage for a 40-hour week will never enable him to pass the income threshold for his wife to obtain a visa to live with him in the UK under the rules introduced by the Government two years ago. In a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on 6 December 2012, the then Minister for Immigration committed the Government to keeping the impact of these rules on family life “under review”. Will the Home Secretary publish the outcome of that review?

James Brokenshire: I hear the point the hon. Gentleman has made, but he may also know that an outstanding case at the Court of Appeal is precisely examining these
	issues. The Government are awaiting the judgment on that case and, obviously, we will reflect further in the light of it.

Julian Smith: At the weekend, millions of people turned up to watch the Tour de France across Yorkshire, and millions are on today’s route. Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to Yorkshire police forces and the Metropolitan police? Does she agree that the presence of the French gendarmerie, with their experience of manning cycle routes, is another emblematic symbol of the importance of European police co-operation?

Damian Green: I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, not least because I was in Yorkshire before the Tour started last week to see the police preparations for the operation, which were extremely thorough, as we would expect. The fact that everyone in Yorkshire—I hope it is the same for everyone in Essex and London today—was able to enjoy a peaceful event, with the world watching us, is a tribute to the calm and well-ordered way the British police go about their business.

Ann Coffey: I understand that the National Crime Agency has suggested to chief constables that they should think carefully about requesting a registered intermediary. The number of requests has increased, and with that, of course, have come consequent costs to police budgets. Does the Home Secretary not think that the way forward might be a central budget for intermediaries requested by the police, so that the best evidence can always be obtained from vulnerable witnesses?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, because clearly registered intermediaries do a good job. I will look at the details of what she says the NCA is saying, because the system does not appear to be working badly. I will certainly look at any details she may care to provide me with.

Andrew Stunell: Does the Home Secretary agree that essential to restoring the public’s confidence in the immigration system is not just counting people into the UK, but counting them out of the UK? What progress is being made on that?

Theresa May: I can tell my right hon. Friend that this Government are committed to introducing exit checks by the time of the next general election. We have a programme that is working well; we already receive a significant amount of information on people exiting the country from the advance passenger information, provided through the airline industry. I have had discussions with representatives of the rail industry and our ports on how we can ensure that we are also getting exit checks for those who travel out of this country by rail and by sea.

Stephen McCabe: I have been asked to raise this question by my constituents, Mr and Mrs Egan, who are foster parents. Their foster child had a passport which, the agency acknowledges, was handed in and destroyed. Apparently he cannot get another one until his natural father completes a lost or stolen form. The father is in Kurdistan and cannot be
	traced. As things stand, the child will have to wait three years until the destroyed passport expires before they can have another one. I am sure that this is not what anyone intends to happen, but the consequence is that the child will end up in emergency care instead of being on holiday with his foster parents. Will the Minister take a look into that case?

James Brokenshire: This is obviously a complex case, but I recognise the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he shares some further details with me, I will investigate further.

Greg Mulholland: Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime, and I warmly welcome the Modern Slavery Bill. Will the Home Secretary listen carefully to the suggestions from UNICEF that it is important to make child trafficking a particularly serious offence with particularly severe penalties?

Karen Bradley: The Modern Slavery Bill introduces the stiffest penalty of life imprisonment for anyone convicted of the offences listed in the Bill, and that includes anyone committing those offences to a child. I am determined that we do not get into a situation where the defence has further arguments it can put forward by arguing over the age or possible age of a child which might stop the perpetrator of this heinous crime not being found guilty and not being convicted of life imprisonment. I am convinced that the offences as listed cover the child exploitation cases that have been raised. I am also determined to bring this Bill forward in this Session so that we can convict people.

Iain McKenzie: Can the Minister confirm whether the Glasgow Passport Office offers a full passport service? If the answer is yes, will he explain why my constituents have been directed to offices as far afield as Belfast, Durham and Peterborough to pick up their passports? If the answer is no, will he tell me why does it not offer such a service?

James Brokenshire: Many passport offices are handling the applications that are coming through. Applications are being routed to different offices. Our focus is on ensuring that the current excessive workload is being dealt with effectively. Indeed, the Passport Office is rising to that challenge, with the output rising week on week, and our focus remains on continuing that performance.

Mark Pritchard: Public understanding and co-operation in the fight against terrorism is absolutely vital, yet at the moment we have
	five tiers of terrorism threat level, ranging from “low” to “critical”. Is the Minister of State confident that the public understand how they should respond when the threat level goes up and down?

James Brokenshire: We do have different threat levels, which are, I think, recognised and understood. Clearly, it is a question of communicating where there is a change in the threat level, and we do keep these issues under careful review.

Linda Riordan: As many as one in four road accidents are caused by drivers either speaking or texting on their mobiles. What work is being done to step up prosecutions for this very dangerous and life-threatening activity?

Norman Baker: That is a matter I take very seriously, not least because of my previous role in the Department for Transport. We are also engaged with mobile phone companies on a whole range of issues to ensure that their products are responsibly used, but the hon. Lady makes a valid point, which I will happily take forward. If she has any particular suggestions, I would be happy to hear them

Tim Loughton: Will the Home Secretary undertake to review the workings of police information notices, or PINs? Thousands have been issued by constabularies, including to myself, but in too many cases they do not even follow the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance, to the extent that people are not even aware that they are under investigation and therefore cannot defend themselves.

Damian Green: I am always happy to continue to look at the PINs system and how it is operating. I am very aware that my hon. Friend has had his own issues with the Sussex police in this regard and I am happy to keep it under close review.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Kelvin Hopkins.

Kelvin Hopkins: Alcohol continues to be implicated in a high proportion of crime, especially crimes of violence. When will the Government take effective steps to reduce levels of alcohol abuse and the associated crime?

Norman Baker: We are taking a large number of steps to deal with alcohol abuse, including the introduction of late-night levies, including the local action areas and including the early morning restriction orders. We are also dealing with the industry and securing voluntary action from it. In fact, I am meeting the industry in about 45 minutes to see what progress has been made.

Child Abuse

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the sexual abuse of children, allegations that evidence of the sexual abuse of children was suppressed by people in positions of power, and the Government’s intended response.
	I want to address two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse; and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. I also want to set out three important principles. First, we will do everything we can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators, and we will do nothing to jeopardise those aims. Secondly, where possible the Government will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. Thirdly, we will make sure that wherever individuals and institutions have failed to protect children from harm, we will expose those failures and learn the lessons.
	Concern that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child abuse in the 1980s relates mainly to information provided to the Department by the late Geoffrey Dickens, who was a Member of this House between 1979 and 1995. As the House will be aware, in February 2013, in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, commissioned an investigation by an independent expert into information that the Home Office received in relation to child abuse allegations, including information provided by Mr Dickens. In order to be confident that all relevant information was included, the investigation reviewed all relevant papers available relating to child abuse between 1979 and 1999.
	The investigation reported last year, and its executive summary was published on 1 August 2013. It concluded that there was no single “Dickens dossier”, but that there had been letters from Mr Dickens to several Home Secretaries over several years that contained allegations of sexual offences against children. Copies of the letters had not been kept, but the investigator found evidence that the information Mr Dickens had provided had been considered and matters requiring investigation had been referred to the police. In total, the investigator found 13 items of information about alleged child abuse. The police already knew about nine of those items, and the remaining four were passed by the Home Office to the police immediately. The investigation found that 114 potentially relevant files were not available. Those are presumed by the Home Office and the investigator to be destroyed, missing or not found, although the investigator made clear that he found no evidence to suggest that the files had been removed or destroyed inappropriately.
	The investigation found no record of specific allegations by Mr Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public figures. On completion of the investigation, the Home Office passed the full text of its interim report and final report, along with accompanying information and material, to the police for them to consider as part of their ongoing criminal investigations.
	As Mark Sedwill has said, the investigator recorded that he had unrestricted access to Home Office records and he received full co-operation from Home Office officials. The investigator was satisfied that the Home Office passed all credible information about child abuse in the time period, from Mr Dickens and elsewhere, to the police so it could be investigated properly.
	I believe that the permanent secretary, in listening to the allegations made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East and ordering an independent investigation, did all the right things. I am confident that the work he commissioned was carried out in good faith, but with such serious allegations the public need to have complete confidence in the integrity of the investigation’s findings. I have, therefore, today appointed Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to lead a review not just of the investigation commissioned by Mark Sedwill, but of how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them. Peter Wanless will be supported in this work by an appropriate senior legal figure, who will be appointed by the permanent secretary. Where the findings of the review relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it will report to the Attorney-General, as well as to me.
	I will ask the review team to advise my officials on what redactions to the full investigation report might be needed in order that, in the interests of transparency, it can be published without jeopardising any future criminal investigations or trials. I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks, and I will place a copy of its terms of reference in the House Library today.
	In addition to the allegations made by Geoffrey Dickens, there have also been allegations relating to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange, a paedophile campaign group that was disbanded in 1984. In response to another query from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, the permanent secretary commissioned another independent investigation in January this year into whether the Home Office had ever directly or indirectly funded PIE. That investigation concluded that the Home Office had not done so, and I will place a copy of the investigation’s findings in the House Library today. To ensure complete public confidence in the work, however, I have also asked Peter Wanless to look at that investigation as part of his review.
	I now turn to public concern that a variety of public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. In recent years, we have seen appalling cases of organised and persistent child sex abuse, including abuse by celebrities such as Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, as well as the systematic abuse of vulnerable girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities. Some of those cases have exposed a failure by public bodies to take their duty of care seriously, and some have shown that the organisations responsible for protecting children from abuse—including the police, social services and schools—have failed to work together properly.
	That is why, in April 2013, the Government established the national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which is led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. That cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the cases I have mentioned and the resulting reviews and inquiries. As a result of its work,
	we now have better guidance for the police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs. In the normal course of its work the group will publish further proposals to protect children from abuse.
	I know that in recent months many Members of the House from all parties have campaigned for an independent, overarching inquiry into historical allegations of child abuse. In my correspondence with the seven Members of Parliament who wrote to me about the campaign—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Wells (Tessa Munt), and for West Bromwich East—I made it clear that the Government did not rule out such an inquiry.
	I can now tell the House that the Government will establish an independent inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The inquiry panel will be chaired by an appropriately senior and experienced figure. It will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman and other members of the panel. Given the scope of its work, it is not likely to report before the general election, but I will make sure that it provides an update on its progress to Parliament before May next year. I will report back to the House when the inquiry panel chairman has been appointed and the full terms of reference have been agreed.
	The inquiry will, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, be a non-statutory panel inquiry. That means that it can begin its work sooner and, because the basis of its early work will be a review of documentary evidence rather than interviews with witnesses who might themselves still be subject to criminal investigations, it will be less likely to prejudice those investigations. I want to be clear, however, that the inquiry panel will have access to all the Government papers, reviews and reports that it needs. Subject to the constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call witnesses from organisations in the public and private sectors, and in wider civil society. I want to make it clear that if the inquiry panel chairman deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert it into a full public inquiry, in line with the Inquiries Act 2005.
	I began my statement by saying that I wanted to address dual concerns: the concern that, in the past, the Home Office failed to act on information it received, and more broadly the concern that public bodies and other institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. I believe that the measures that I have announced today address those concerns. I also said that I wanted the work that we are doing to reflect three principles. First, our priority must be the prosecution of the people behind these disgusting crimes. Secondly, wherever possible and consistent with the need to prosecute, we will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. Thirdly, where there has been a failure to protect children
	from abuse, we will expose it and learn from it. I believe that the measures announced today reflect those important principles, and I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Child abuse is a terrible, devastating crime that traumatises children when they are at their most vulnerable and ruins lives. Perpetrators need to be stopped and brought to justice. Too often, the system has failed young victims, not hearing or believing them when they cried out for help, and failing to protect them from those who sought to harm them. There have been particularly troubling cases of abuse involving powerful people and celebrities, and the failure of institutions to act. As Members in all parts of the House and from all parties have made clear, when allegations go to the heart of Whitehall or Westminster, it is even more important to demonstrate that strong action will be taken to find out the truth and get justice for the victims.
	The Home Secretary is right to announce today that she has changed her position on and response to child abuse, but I want to press her on the detail. We need three things: justice and support for victims; the truth about what happened and how the Home Office and others responded; and stronger child protection and reforms for the future. Any allegation that a child was abused, even decades ago, must be thoroughly investigated by the police. Will she tell us whether all the allegations uncovered or put forward in any of these investigations will be covered by Operation Fernbridge? Will the files that she said had been passed to the police go to Operation Fernbridge? We understand that it has only seven full-time officers working on it. Does she think that they have the resources and investigators they need? She referred to the importance of prosecutions when there have been child sexual offences. She will know that prosecutions have dropped in recent years. Does she believe that that is cause for concern, when recorded offences have increased?
	Secondly, we need to know what happened when the allegations were first made decades ago. The Home Secretary will know that former Cabinet Ministers have said that there may have been a cover-up. The previous response from the Home Office was not adequate; the 2013 review to which she referred was not announced to Parliament, did not reveal that more than 100 files had gone missing, and has never been published. Will she tell the House whether she or other Ministers saw that review, and whether they were told about the missing files?
	I welcome the involvement of Peter Wanless, who is well respected, but will the Home Secretary clarify whether this is simply a review of a review, or whether it will look again at the original material? Will this review have the power to call for further information, range more widely, and interview witnesses if necessary? She talked about publication of the review; does she mean the original 2013 review, the new review, or both? It would be very helpful to have transparency.
	Thirdly, as the Home Secretary will know, I raised the issue of the need for an overarching inquiry directly with her in Parliament 18 months ago, when she made a
	statement about abuse in care homes in north Wales. She and the Prime Minister rejected the need for such an inquiry at the time, but I welcome her agreement to it now. There is currently a range of reviews and investigations in care homes, the BBC, the NHS and now in the Home Office. Also, more recently, there is an inquiry into events in Rochdale and Rotherham. At their heart, they all have a similar problem: child victims were not listened to, heard or protected, and too many institutions let children down. Reform of those individual institutions must not be delayed, but isolated reforms are not enough. An inquiry needs to draw together the full picture to look at the institutional failures of the past and to examine the child protection systems that we have in place that may continue to fail children today. An inquiry must also be able to take evidence from the public, in public, as the Hillsborough review was able to do. I welcome her comments on that and her decision to keep under review whether an inquiry has the powers it needs and whether a public inquiry is needed.
	An inquiry must also cover the child protection system in operation today. The Home Secretary’s answer in Question Time to my question on the 75% drop in the number of criminals barred from working with children suggests that the Home Office is still too complacent in that area. I urge her to include the vetting and barring system and the current child protection system in the overarching review. It is important that we do not have systems in place that store up future child protection problems.
	The cases that have emerged involving child abuse and sexual assaults by high-profile, powerful people and celebrities have been deeply disturbing, as has the failure of the system to stop them and to protect children and young people today. Previously, the Home Office had not done enough to respond, but I welcome the further steps that the Home Secretary has announced today. She will understand that that is why we seek assurances that the investigations will now be strong enough. She and I will agree that we need justice for victims, the truth about what happened and a stronger system of child protection for the future. People need to have confidence that the process will deliver justice for past victims and protect children in the future.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady shares my concern to ensure that we have proper safeguards and protection for children in the future and that not only are lessons learned but that action is taken as a result of those lessons being learned following the various reviews into both historical and more recent cases of child sexual exploitation.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether all the matters that are felt to be for the police to investigate will be matters for Operation Fernbridge. Actually, a number of investigations are taking place across the country into historical cases of child abuse; it is not appropriate that all those investigations will be in relation to Operation Fernbridge. The National Crime Agency, for example, is leading on Operation Pallial, which is the investigation into potential sexual abuse in children’s care homes in north Wales, and other investigations are taking place elsewhere. All allegations do not necessarily go to a
	single force; they go to whichever force is the most appropriate to deal with the particular cases and to ensure that people can be brought to justice.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the number of prosecutions and offences, which is a matter that is most properly for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, but she will have noticed that he is on the Treasury Bench and has noted her comments.
	My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims answered a parliamentary question in 2013—in October 2013, I think—in which reference was made to the missing 114 files.
	The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked what I had seen as Home Secretary. I saw the executive summary of both the interim report and the final report commissioned by Mark Sedwill. I did not see the full report for very good reason: the matters that lay behind the report were allegations that senior Members of Parliament—and, in particular, senior Conservative Members of Parliament —may have been involved in those activities. I therefore thought that it was absolutely right and proper that the commissioning of the investigation and the work that was done should be led by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, not by a Conservative politician.
	The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about lessons learnt. Some of those lessons are already being acted on. As I mentioned, the national group that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is leading has already brought forward proposals on how the police and prosecutors could better handle these matters, and it will continue with its work. That will of course feed into the work of the wider inquiry panel that I am setting up. I want it to look widely at the question of the protection of children. I want it to ensure that we can be confident that in future people will not look back to today and say, “If only they had introduced this measure or that measure.” We must ensure that the lessons that come out of the various reviews that are taking place are not only properly learned, but acted on.

Mark Harper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her setting up of the independent inquiry panel. She set out three clear principles. The most important of those principles is that the panel should do nothing that prevents these heinous crimes from being properly investigated and those who are guilty of them from being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Theresa May: Although it is right that we look at the lessons that need to be learned, I am sure that the view shared across the whole House is that it is absolutely essential that we do nothing that could get in the way of prosecuting the perpetrators of these appalling crimes. That is why it is right to set this review up as an inquiry panel so that it can begin its work without jeopardising the criminal investigations taking place.

Tom Watson: Frightened survivors of child abuse deserve the truth. I hope and think that they will welcome today’s statement, particularly the announcement that they will have access to all documentation. Will the inquiry team be able to see the
	files of the special branch, the intelligence services and any submissions made to previous Prime Ministers on people such as Sir Peter Hayman and others?

Theresa May: May I first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over a number of years on these issues? He and a number of other hon. Members and hon. Friends have been relentless in their pursuit of these issues and their determination to bring truth and justice for the victims. As I said in my statement, my intention is that the fullest possible access should be made to Government papers in relation to these matters. As I am sure he and others will recognise, where there are issues relating to who can have access to some files, we will need to have an appropriate means of ensuring that the information is available to the inquiry panel. However, as I have said, I am looking to appoint a very senior figure to chair the panel, so I expect it to be possible to ensure that all Government papers are available.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Home Secretary for her swift and decisive action in this case. Having seen my constituent Mr Tom Perry suffer for years to bring his abusers at Caldicott school to justice, resulting in an eight-year custodial sentence at the beginning of this year for its former headmaster, Peter Wright, may I urge her to ensure that these investigations are expedited? As there is still no duty to report suspected abuse, will she ask the inquiries to look again at mandatory reporting of suspected abuse in regulated activities? I have already discussed that with the Secretary of State for Education and hope that the Home Secretary will take it up as well.

Theresa May: I commend my right hon. Friend for her comments. Obviously she has seen a very specific case and knows how long it has taken her constituent to find justice for the treatment that he received. I will indeed raise the specific issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, but it is exactly those sorts of issues that I expect the inquiry panel to look at: namely, are there any gaps in what we currently do that mean we are not properly protecting children and, if there are, what appropriate mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that those gaps are filled?

Jack Straw: While welcoming today’s announcements by the Home Secretary and the observations by her shadow, may I press her on the issue of record keeping? When I became Home Secretary, it became very clear to me—I was asking for information in a quite unrelated area—that there had been a downgrading of the archiving and record-keeping functions of the Home Office. I say that in a non-partisan way, because this issue has continued and is made more complicated in the so-called digital age. Will the Home Secretary ensure that both panels look very carefully—taking advice, if necessary, from the head of the National Archives—at the adequacy or, I am sure, inadequacy of existing mechanisms and resources for ensuring that proper records are kept, particularly in areas such as this?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course the keeping of proper records is very important. Over the years that we are dealing with, there have been a number of approaches to record
	keeping within the Home Office and, indeed, within other Government Departments. In the 1980s, the system was changed to the so-called Grigg system. Subsequently, the National Archives has issued guidance to Government Departments on the approach that they should take to the keeping of records. Of course, that is exactly the sort of issue that I expect could be part of the inquiry’s work.

Duncan Hames: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Whatever disagreements we may have, she has always been outspoken in confronting complacency and corruption wherever she finds it. When former public servants give evidence to the inquiry panel, will they be released from any obligations they may have under gagging clauses in severance agreements or, where necessary, the Official Secrets Act?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is my intention that people should have the ability to speak openly in giving evidence to the inquiry panel if they are called as witnesses, or in giving written evidence if they so wish. I will have to look at the legal issues around the Official Secrets Act, but it is intended that everybody should have the ability to speak openly. Only if people can speak openly will we get to the bottom of these matters.

Keith Vaz: I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to set up the various inquiries. Will she pass on my thanks to Mark Sedwill for the very full letter that he sent to me and the Home Affairs Committee? It is the first time that a Home Office letter has arrived before the deadline. As she knows, we will be examining Mr Sedwill tomorrow. In his letter, he said that the head of the inquiry would be an independent legal figure. The Home Secretary has just announced that it will be Mr Wanless, assisted by a legal figure. Is that correct? Has there been a change, then, since Saturday night? What steps did the Home Secretary take when she discovered that the 114 files were missing?

Theresa May: On the way in which the review is being set up, yes, we have decided on a slightly different approach. The permanent secretary will be appointing a senior legal figure, as he has said. I felt that it was appropriate to ask for somebody to lead the inquiry who was involved in child protection matters and who was independent in a different way, working with the senior legal figure. Peter Wanless will be leading it, but a senior legal figure will be appointed, and the permanent secretary will make the announcement in due course.
	On the 114 files that have not been found, that figure was first given in a parliamentary answer last October, and it was repeated in the very full letter that Mark Sedwill gave to the right hon. Gentleman. The investigator was unable to say what had happened to those files—that is precisely one of the problems. There is no evidence as to whether the files were destroyed or have been mislaid. Obviously, the new review will be able to go back over the work that the investigator did to see whether any further evidence can be adduced.

Edward Garnier: Having sadly had to deal with a number of historic child sex abuse cases in my time as a Law Officer, may I assure the Home Secretary that the victims of these hideous
	crimes suffer from them well into their adulthood and often into middle and old age, so the need to bring to justice those who have committed these terrible crimes is surely uncontroversial. Will the Home Secretary make sure that those who have evidence to give or allegations to make can do so in the most convenient form possible—that is, to one central police force which masterminds the national investigation—rather than having a whole host of police forces collecting the information and giving it to the Crown Prosecution Service? At the moment, there seems to be a drip-feed of insinuation, which is causing a lot of distress to innocent people. What we need to see is the guilty prosecuted and brought to justice, rather than the innocent having their reputations trashed.

Theresa May: I take very seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. In a sense, we are dealing with two types of allegations. The first are allegations that may be made in cases relating to the information given to the Home Office in the 1980s. There are also allegations about activities at children’s homes in different parts of the country. I will reflect on my hon. and learned Friend’s comment about the appropriate way in which those allegations can be made and properly investigated. I also echo his other point, because I think we have all seen, in interviews given by people who are well into their middle age or older and who were abused as children, that this is not a matter that goes away. It is not something that can be forgotten. It lasts with people for the rest of their lives and we owe it to them to give them truth and justice.

Simon Danczuk: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Survivors of child sex abuse are very brave in dealing with the horrific attacks that they have had to endure. How will the proposed inquiry engage with and thoroughly involve the victims of child sex abuse?

Theresa May: I think it would be most appropriate for the chairman and panel themselves to decide what to do on that matter, rather than Government trying to tell them what to do. Once the name of the chairman is announced, I am sure that Members of this House who have experience of dealing with these matters will wish to make their views known, but I think it is best to leave it to the chairman and panel to identify how they wish to work and take evidence and comments from people. May I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is another Member of this House who has done a great deal of work on this matter in trying to uncover the truth about those who have been victims?

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the overarching inquiry, which is important because if we wish to empower children to resist and report child sex abuse, we need to demonstrate that as adults we are prepared to talk openly about these things. Will she give her view on whether it is correct that no Government record should be destroyed without a record of its being destroyed being kept? If that is what has happened in these 114 cases, is she confident that it is not still happening, and is she satisfied that the Lord Chancellor’s code of practice on the management of records—
	to which I think the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred—is actually being complied with and, indeed, that it is adequate for the purpose?

Theresa May: As I indicated in response to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, the panel may well look at the question of record keeping. It is right that there are certain processes in place, as I also indicated in my earlier response. One of the issues we are dealing with is that, over the years and the time period we are looking at, a number of different approaches to record keeping were taken by Government Departments. It is, I think, best practice to identify what has happened to particular records when they are identified, but the practice of what is done has varied over time. That is one of the aspects that we will obviously need to consider.

Elfyn Llwyd: I very much welcome the announcement of the panels of inquiry, but may I ask the right hon. Lady a specific question about a north Wales matter? Some 18 months ago, Mrs Justice Macur was appointed to look at the Waterhouse inquiry, specifically to see whether its remit was too narrow and whether there was evidence of wider sexual abuse. She completed her work in July last year; since then, there has been silence. Will the right hon. Lady look into that matter, and advise the House when the findings will be published?

Theresa May: I am very happy to do that, and to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the outcome of my inquiry. In relation to certain matters in north Wales, I am obviously aware that Operation Pallial, a criminal investigation, is also taking place. That may be affecting the issue, but I will certainly look into it.

Nicola Blackwood: I strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the inquiry. For too long, survivors of appalling abuse have been denied the transparency and justice they deserve, and in Oxford we know too well the long-term toll that that can take. For that reason, we must not raise false hopes today. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to access to Government and police papers, transparency from local authorities will be essential to achieving a just and effective inquiry? How does she intend to achieve such transparency?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is also well placed to comment on these matters. She has done a considerable amount of work, particularly following the recent cases of child sexual exploitation and grooming in her constituency and elsewhere in Oxford, under the Thames Valley police. She is right: I intend the terms of reference for the panel of inquiry to be drawn quite widely, and they will therefore relate not just to central Government papers. I will publish the terms of reference in due course, when it has been possible to discuss them with the appointed chairman. She is also right that local authorities, with both their direct responsibilities for child protection and their responsibilities for placing children in care of various sorts, will be an important source of information.

Bill Esterson: Whatever investigations and inquiries take place in the coming months and possibly years, will the Home Secretary
	ensure that there is support for victims, including, crucially, counselling which for many years has been far too difficult for both children and adults to access? Given the way in which child abuse is sometimes discussed publicly, will she work closely with ministerial colleagues to make sure that the child protection system and those working in child protection are not in any way undermined by inquiries into historical abuse?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman’s question about counselling support for victims is more appropriate for other Departments to consider, but I will certainly raise it with my colleagues. In relation to the way in which we discuss this issue, he is right that many people are working assiduously to protect and safeguard children, and I in no way wish to undermine the work that they are doing. It is important for us to look at a number of allegations and cases where people have been prosecuted for historical abuse, but we have of course seen more recent cases of abuse—I mentioned a number of areas in my statement—and it is important for us to learn from those cases to ensure that we have the best systems in place to provide the protection for children that we all want.

Paul Beresford: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Does she not agree that the situation has dramatically improved since, say, 2003? The public attitude has improved, and legal changes have led to improvements; in fact, the authorities are now in a position to be proactive when they get the chance and when information is brought forward. Does she agree that agencies such as the police and social services should have a legal obligation to provide information to the inquiry on request, and to act in a positive manner towards it?

Theresa May: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that all agencies should act constructively and positively in relation to the inquiry—I encourage them to do so—because that is how we can get to the truth. We have seen that in similar inquiry panels that have taken place. On his first point, I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done over many years in looking at the legislative structure, dealing with the issues and working with the police to ensure that the best possible support is given in relation to the activities of paedophiles. Most recently, we have of course seen the new offence of possessing paedophile manuals in the Serious Crime Bill.

Ronnie Campbell: Will the Home Secretary look at Operation Rose in Northumberland, which took place a few years ago? It is becoming more apparent that it was a whitewash as more victims come forward each day and each month.

Theresa May: I am happy to take away the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is precisely because I want to ensure that we cover all the cases that have come up that I think it is important that the terms of the inquiry panel are drawn quite widely. I will look into the matter that he raises.

Peter Bottomley: The country will welcome the principles behind my right hon. Friend’s reviews and panel. Will she, along with other Departments, make it clear to all children, especially
	looked-after children, that if they have worries that they cannot communicate to the people who are looking after them, there is an outside place to which they can go with confidence to talk about their worries?
	On archives, may I refer my right hon. Friend to the letter that she has received from Dr Richard Stone—I do not expect her to respond to it this afternoon—about the hidden stories of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry? As a member of the inquiry, he did not have access to the papers while trying to implement the recommendations. It seems to me to be important that we learn the lessons from that.

Theresa May: I will obviously look carefully at the letter to which my hon. Friend refers and at examples from other inquiries that have taken place.
	It is important that young people who are victims of sexual abuse feel able to go somewhere to report it. As has been said by more than one Member today, I hope the fact that we are talking about this matter and our acknowledgement of what has happened to young people in the past and the importance of dealing with it will give victims greater confidence that if they come forward, they will be listened to and heard.
	We have seen recent cases that have been taken forward by police forces. Sadly, I see the list of the operations that the police are taking forward to deal with child sexual exploitation and grooming up and down the country. Frankly, the number of cases is shocking. Again, as young people see those cases being dealt with, hopefully it will give them the confidence to come forward if they have been victims of abuse.

Dennis Skinner: As well as setting off these reviews by the great and the good, the so-called independent experts and the people that are known to the Government, would it not be more convincing if the Home Secretary had said, “I’m going to do something else. I’m going to make sure that all those cuts in the public sector and in local authorities are reversed, and that people who deal with child abuse every single day get a decent pay rise”? That is what the Government ought to do if they really mean it.

Theresa May: This Government have a record of being willing to deal with and address issues of child sexual exploitation. I particularly commend the work that was done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) as Minister for children on the strategy to deal with child exploitation strategy, which is having an impact. Of course the Government must constantly look at whether we can do more. That is why it is important to have the panel to look at the lessons learned.

Rob Wilson: May I add my welcome for the measures that the Home Secretary has announced? They will offer great reassurance to the public. It is important that all public institutions, including Parliament and the NHS, are held to account. In that respect, will she confirm that the inquiry will have full access to information from quasi-public bodies, such as the BBC, as well as from institutions where we know significant child abuse has taken place, such as the Church?

Theresa May: As I have said, the terms of reference will be published in due course. It is my intention that it should be a wide inquiry. It should therefore be possible for it to look not just at state institutions but at other bodies to see whether they have been protecting children appropriately or not, as the case may be.

Lisa Nandy: In the mid-1990s, a senior ex-Whip who had served in the 1970s told the BBC that the Whips Office routinely helped MPs with scandals, including those, in his own words, “involving small boys”, and that they did so to exert control over those individuals and prevent problems for the Government. That is just one powerful example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent justice from happening. May we have a full commitment that the inquiry will consider not just the police and social services but what happens at the heart of power, and that if those systems are found to exist today, they will be overturned, whether or not it makes life uncomfortable for political parties, Parliament or the Government?

Theresa May: It is not my intention that political parties be outside the scope of the inquiry. It has to be wide-ranging and it has to look at every area where it is possible that people have been guilty of abuse. We need to learn lessons to ensure that the systems we have in place are able to identify that and deal with it appropriately.

Nigel Evans: I welcome the reviews announced by the Home Secretary today. We want those reviews to be thorough, but we do not want another Chilcot—we do not want them to drag on interminably. May we be assured that there will be some form of time scale by which they will be expected to report? As far as the 114 missing files are concerned, they are either destroyed, missing or not found. It seems to me that somebody believes they may still be there. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that somebody is still looking for the files and that no stone will be left unturned until we know exactly where they are?

Theresa May: On the timetable, as I indicated I would expect the inquiry panel work to go beyond the general election. It is necessary that it has sufficient time to do its job properly and comprehensively, but I undertake to have a progress update report presented to Parliament before May 2015. The deadline or final timetable is something that needs to be discussed with the chairman of the panel, because it will be partly determined by the way they intend to operate the work of the panel. It will also be determined by the progress of the criminal investigations, because we do not want to jeopardise them.
	The investigator certainly did not find any evidence that the files were, in any shape or form, in existence, but I think what I am saying is that there is no categorical evidence that they had been destroyed, because that had not been recorded—hence the issues that have been raised about the recording of matters relating to records.

Paul Flynn: Sir Jimmy Savile was the honoured invited guest at 11 new year’s eve parties hosted by a Prime Minister. He was given the keys to two hospitals by Health Ministers. He was a trusted friend of royalty. Can we know whether the
	intelligence services had surveillance on this man? If they did put in reports, why was no action taken on them?

Theresa May: In response to an earlier question, I addressed the issue of my expectation of the panel being able to have as much access to Government papers as possible. On the wider issue the hon. Gentleman raises, this is precisely why we need to look back at these cases and ask why somebody who was serially abusing a large number of people—children and adults—over a period of time was able to do so while continuing to be feted by society at large.

Graham Stuart: The Home Secretary was right to be cautious about an overarching inquiry. Is she now convinced that an inquiry that covers multiple decades and multiple institutions, in the public sector and outside, will be sufficiently focused and effective? The last thing we want is for the inquiry to fail to draw a line for those who have suffered such horrors in their early years.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is often a tension between ensuring that a report or an inquiry can look as widely as is necessary to get to the truth, while at the same time ensuring that it does not continue for so long that it ceases to have relevance when it reports. I will be discussing this matter with the chairman of the inquiry to ensure that it can be conducted in such a manner that lessons can be learned sufficiently swiftly for action to be taken to ensure we are protecting children today.

Pete Wishart: On behalf of nationalist Members, I welcome the inquiry and the other investigations that the Home Secretary has mentioned, but will she assure me that, where possible, she will keep the devolved Administrations informed of the progress of the inquests and work with them to ensure that we really get to the heart of the matter?

Theresa May: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will talk to the devolved Administrations and work with them on the work of this inquiry. Some matters will cover England and Wales, and other matters are of a devolved nature, which makes it particularly important to work with the devolved Administrations.

Michael Ellis: I read the executive summary of the 2013 review, according to which 114 files were said to have been lost or destroyed. The investigator says, however, that he looked only at what he called the central Home Office database. What about files that might be held by the Security Service or other agencies? Will the Home Secretary confirm that files held by such bodies and those held on other databases will be incorporated in the review?

Theresa May: I certainly think it important for other databases to be interrogated and looked into. As I indicated in response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), there are issues around access to certain matters that relate to secret and intelligence material. I am sure,
	however, that there are ways of ensuring that all appropriate material—whether it be appropriate for the review or for the inquiry panel—will be looked into.

Ann Coffey: In the 1970s and ’80s, there was a confusion between sexual liberation and sexual exploitation, and that gave cover for the abuse of some children to escape challenge. Much progress has been made, but victims of child abuse are still being blamed for their own exploitation. Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are to make significant progress in protecting our children, the independent inquiry panel needs to look at current attitudes as well as understand historical attitudes?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the atmosphere and attitudes against which these abuses took place. We need to be very clear about what amounts to abuse today. That is why, in a related context, the Home Office has run a “This is Abuse” campaign for teenagers to help them identify when abuse is taking place. Sadly, some might have seen abusive relationships that were portrayed to them as normal. We need to ensure that everybody understands what abuse is, and understands their ability to say no.

Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary mentioned political parties. On alleged child abuse by past or present Members of Parliament, will she confirm whether the inquiry will consider any allegations or evidence held by the Whips?

Theresa May: The intention of the inquiry panel is to be able to look as widely as possible at these issues. I should perhaps clarify a point: the inquiry panel will not be conducting investigations into specific allegations, which would properly be matters for criminal investigations. It is looking across the board at how these matters have been approached in the past and asking the question—I intend this to be drawn quite widely—whether the proper protections for children were in place, and if not, whether those gaps still exist today, and if so, what we need to do to fill those gaps. I expect as much information as possible to be given to the panel to enable it to achieve that.

Helen Goodman: In the course of doing constituency casework, every Member will come across vulnerable adults and children. Does the Home Secretary agree that Members of Parliament and caseworkers should undergo Criminal Records Bureau checks? We have legislated for everybody else in similar positions of responsibility to have those checks, so is it not time that we did so here, too?

Theresa May: There is, in a sense, a paradox here, in that a Member of Parliament can go into a school without a CRB check, but the inquiry panel will be considering how we can protect children, whether there are gaps anywhere, and whether we need to fill those gaps. I expect its report to identify areas in which the panel considers it necessary, potentially, to legislate further in order to protect children.

Tim Loughton: I commend my right hon. Friend for—uniquely, it would seem—understanding the gravity of these never-ending
	revelations and the need for transparency and urgency in the investigation of them, and gently regretting the rather partisan approach taken by the shadow Home Secretary, which contrasts with the all-party spirit of the 141 Members who called for the inquiry.
	Will the panel have the power to summon evidence and subpoena witnesses, will it be able to go where it needs to go, and, crucially, will it be able to trigger criminal investigations of anyone who is found to be responsible for covering up such acts, rather than just the perpetrators?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I also commend him for the work that he has done for many years, and not just as Minister for Children: I remember how assiduous he was during our time in opposition in trying to ensure that children were properly protected, and that issues such as the abuse and exploitation of children. and their lack of safety, were taken into account and dealt with properly.
	If the panel found allegations that it believed would be dealt with more appropriately by the police through a criminal investigation, I would expect the allegations to be passed to the police for that purpose. The panel will be able to call witnesses. Its initial structure will not enable it to require witnesses to come before it, and it will have to consider whether calling a witness would in any way jeopardise or prejudice a criminal investigation that was taking place if that individual was involved in the investigation. However, as I have said, if the chairman decides to recommend that the inquiry panel be turned into a full statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005—which would, of course, have the right to require witnesses to come forward—we will make it absolutely clear that we will go down that route.

Ann Clwyd: In the early 1990s, I interviewed seven young men in my constituency, all of whom had been victims of child abuse at Bryn Estyn in north Wales. None of them asked for compensation, but all of them said “We want someone to say sorry.” That was uppermost in their minds: they wanted someone to admit that what he or she had done was wrong.
	I had to bring parliamentary business to a halt two nights running on the Floor of the House in order to get the main allegations contained in the then secret Jillings report into the public eye. Shortly afterwards a public inquiry was set up, and all talk of that was shut down for three years. I have given evidence to Operation Pallial, one of the inquiries that have been taking place. Can the Home Secretary give any time frame for when it might report? In my view, this has dragged on for far too long.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady has raised an important point. I cannot give her a time frame for Operation Pallial, in relation to its termination. Obviously it is ongoing, and is dealing with individuals and matters as it comes across them and is able to deal with them. However, I will write to the right hon. Lady about what it has been doing and how long it thinks the process might take.

Peter Bone: The police are becoming increasingly successful at breaking up human trafficking rings. Adult victims of human trafficking
	are looked after in safe homes which are run safely and are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Unfortunately, however, children are given to local authorities to be looked after, and there is evidence that they are often re-trafficked and abused again. Will the Home Secretary consider installing for children a system similar to the one that we have for adults?

Theresa May: The purpose of the child advocate trials that we are introducing is precisely to find out how we can best ensure that child victims of human trafficking are given the support and help that they need. As my hon. Friend has said—and he recognises this through the work that he has done, particularly when he was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern day slavery—some youngsters sadly find themselves being trafficked again when in local authority care.
	This is appalling. I am afraid that over the years this country can take no comfort at all from its record on children in local authority care, and we have seen many appalling cases as a result of that. I hope that the child advocate trials will show us where best practice is and how we can best support these children.

Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Home Secretary’s report, and may I suggest that one of the things the inquiry panel might look at is the adequacy, or otherwise, of multiagency activity in pursuing the point she has just made? She has talked twice now about the investigator having determined that files had not been removed deliberately or inappropriately, but she has also said the record of housekeeping on this matter has been varied. Can she tell the House how the investigator determined that these files were not removed deliberately or inappropriately, and if she cannot tell the House that, will the inquiry look specifically into that issue?

Theresa May: The review that will be taking place under the direction of Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the NSPCC, with the support I indicated earlier, will precisely be looking at the investigator’s review to see whether it was conducted properly and whether the information was properly dealt with, and will look at what the Home Office did in relation to the files and so forth. So it is a matter that will be looked at by the review of the review.

Phillip Lee: I thank the Home Secretary for her important and measured statement. With the apparent loss of in excess of about 100 Home Office documents that are relevant to this statement, current testimonies from past victims take on a greater importance. In view of that, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the police, and in particular the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, have the necessary powers to protect victims from ongoing blackmail? In particular, I gather that there are general concerns around the potential use of photographs and films from the 1970s and ’80s which have now been digitised in order to discourage victims from coming forward.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, if I may, I will look into the specific issue he has raised about the films or videos from the 1970s which have been digitised. I am satisfied generally that CEOP does have the powers it needs, but he has raised a very specific issue and I will look into it and get back to him.

Barry Gardiner: The three principles of justice for victims, transparency of process and learning the lessons are absolutely right and necessary, but does the Home Secretary not consider that they may not be sufficient unless there is a care package of support attached to the inquiry, because otherwise victims may still feel reluctant in coming forward? She referred earlier to it being for other Departments to look at that; I believe it is for hers.

Theresa May: It is, of course, right that the Home Office is establishing the inquiry panel, and we will be discussing with the inquiry panel what it considers will be necessary for it to be able to ensure it can undertake its investigations and review in the best possible way.

Robert Buckland: As someone who called for an overarching review, may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement? Does she agree that one of the possible causes of the seeming culture of impunity that existed in the ’70s and ’80s was the fact that the courts made no adjustment whatsoever for the evidence of children and young people and there was a statutory requirement that juries in England and Wales had to be warned about the absence of corroborative evidence in sexual complaints?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s experience of matters relating to the courts is, of course, greater than mine, but I think he is absolutely right that one of the things that has developed over the years has been a willingness of the criminal justice system as a whole to recognise the need to put in place more specific support for those vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they are able to bring their evidence forward. Of course justice requires that the evidence that people give is appropriately challenged, but it is important that over the years—not just in issues relating to child abuse, but in some other matters as well—the courts have recognised the need to make sure that witnesses are not put off coming forward by what is going to be their experience at trial.

Kerry McCarthy: I am still a little unclear as to the scope of the Wanless review into the 114 missing files. The Home Secretary described it as a “review of the review”. Will it have the power to go further and take evidence from other people who may know something about the missing files that was not the subject of the original investigation in 2013?

Theresa May: I have put a copy of the terms of reference of the review in the Library, so it will be possible for the hon. Lady and others to see those. She described it as a review of the 114 files, but it is not a review of the 114 files; it is a review of all the work that was done by the investigator to see how the Home Office handled the letters from Geoffrey Dickens and other information that became known to it to ensure that it was handled appropriately. As I indicated, the review will be looking at other matters that relate to the police and prosecuting
	authorities. It will also look at whether further information is available in relation to the 114 files and whether the original review’s assessment of their significance was reasonable.

Mark Pritchard: Whether in private homes or public institutions, child sex abuse is, sadly, all too prevalent in British society. Therefore, will the Home Secretary look again, for current cases, at the tariff for serious sexual crimes, given that the current tariffs and sentences are clearly not working as a deterrent?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. This is a matter more properly for the Justice Secretary to look at, and I will ensure that it is raised with him.

John Mann: Operation Fernbridge has been given details of the blocked 1988 investigation into child prostitution, sex rings, prominent people and children’s homes in Lambeth. Can we be certain that it has sufficient resources to see whether those files still exist—and if not, where they have gone—and to prosecute if possible? In addition, this year in Bassetlaw six people have come forward and made allegations of historical child abuse, but there have been no prosecutions, Nottinghamshire police have lost files and Nottinghamshire social services have destroyed files. Will that be in the remit of one of these investigations now taking place?

Theresa May: On the resources available to Operation Fernbridge, it is an operational matter for the commissioner to determine what resources are appropriate for the level of investigation that is necessary. I am sure that we all want the same thing: to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. The whole point of the inquiry panel is to look at lessons learned as a result of these various reviews of historical allegations that have taken place. Obviously, I would expect it to be wide ranging in ensuring that it is indeed identifying all the lessons that need to be learned and the actions that need to be taken.

Jason McCartney: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am happy to call the hon. Gentleman if he can confirm on the record that he was here at the start.

Jason McCartney: Absolutely, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Good. I call Jason McCartney.

Jason McCartney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Much of Geoffrey Dickens’s former Huddersfield West seat was incorporated into my constituency, so there is much local interest in this in my part of the world. I very much welcome the announcement of today’s independent inquiry. Will the Home Secretary assure me that it will look into all the evidence and all the allegations, no matter how old?

Theresa May: The point is that the inquiry panel should be able to look at historical allegations and identify what lessons need to be learned. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, I think it is appropriate for me to make it clear again that it will not be for the
	inquiry panel to determine a particular allegation; if there is an allegation where a criminal investigation is more appropriate, it should be referred to the police for criminal investigation. It will, however, be looking across the board at these historical allegations and at why so many children in so many different environments—in the care of the state and in other areas—found themselves the victims of this abuse and apparently nothing was done to protect them properly.

Kevin Brennan: Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), we know that special branch suppressed files alleging criminality in the Cyril Smith case. Allegations have been made that the intelligence services have been involved in the hushing up of police inquiries. Will the Home Secretary accept in terms, and tell the House today that she accepts completely, that without access to those records, including those of the intelligence services, this new inquiry will not be able to establish the truth?

Theresa May: I had hoped that I had made it clear to the House that it is my intention and expectation that all material, or Government papers, will be made available to the inquiry panel. The caveat that I put on that—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members will recognise this—is that if, when we are dealing with this material, intelligence matters are involved, certain care will have to be taken in the way in which that material is dealt with. I intend that, as far as possible, Government papers will be made available to the inquiry so that that inquiry can come to a proper determination.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced. Much of the discussion that we have had today has been around historical cases. Is she confident that if such a bundle of documents were to be handed to her today, it would be treated in a much better manner?

Theresa May: I would hope that, if a similar bundle were handed in to the Home Office today, officials would ensure that those documents went to the police and were properly investigated. In the case of the material that came in to previous Home Secretaries, the evidence of the review was that material that should have been handed to the police was handed to the police, but we will be looking to ensure that that is what actually took place. Obviously, if such material were handed to the Home Office today, I would expect the Home Office to keep appropriate records and ensure that the police were taking those matters on board as appropriate.

Pat Glass: May I press the Home Secretary on the issue of intelligence files? Is she confirming to the House that all special branch files that are not connected to national security will be made available?

Theresa May: I have indicated to the House that I would expect Government papers to be made available to the inquiry. I remind Members of the House that, where information is currently being used in a criminal investigation, we do not want the inquiry’s work in any way to jeopardise or prejudice criminal investigations
	that are taking place. I used a phrase in my statement about Government “making all papers available” to the inquiry. Obviously, it is for the chairman and the panel to determine how they wish to conduct the inquiry, but the Government will be open to the inquiry.

Toby Perkins: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Does she agree that although Mr Sedwill found no evidence that the 114 files that were not available had been removed or destroyed inappropriately, it does not in any way mean that it is not deeply concerning that those files have gone missing, nor does it in any way provide positive evidence that they were not inappropriately removed? It just means that no evidence was provided one way or the other.

Theresa May: The important point, as I understand it, is—I cannot find the exact phrase in my papers—whether those files were of significance. The reviewer looked at the issues in terms of the files being identified. Obviously, he was not able to look into the files themselves precisely because there does not appear to be a record of whether they had been destroyed, mislaid or simply not found. The purpose of having the review of the review is precisely so that it is possible to go back on those issues and to look at them again and see whether further information is available about those files—that is in the terms of reference of the review of the review—and whether the issue was dealt with properly by the investigator.

Michael McCann: On 23 May 2012 at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the issue of the abuse that took place at Medomsley detention centre. My constituent, John McCabe, was raped every day for nine months by guards and others inside and outside Medomsley. John has waived his anonymity and, because of his courage, 700 victims from the detention centre have come forward, and 70-plus detectives from County Durham police force are going through the evidence. What has always puzzled me is that much of the evidence that was available was already in the hands of the Home Office. Why did the Home Office not instigate the investigation? Does the Home Secretary not accept that the only way to get to the truth about the depths to which paedophile circles have infiltrated state systems is to cut to the chase and announce a public inquiry today?

Theresa May: We are absolutely clear that the way forward is to ensure that work can start soon and that we do not delay this work because of the impact it could have on the criminal investigations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that a significant number of police officers in the County Durham force were looking into the allegations of the abuse that took place at Medomsley detention centre, and I am sure that he would want to ensure that those criminal investigations could continue and that, where evidence that was suitable for charge and prosecution was found, those charges should be laid and those prosecutions should be taken forward. I want to ensure that the work that is now going to be done does not jeopardise the prosecution of perpetrators. That is why I have set this up today as an inquiry panel. As I made
	clear in my statement, if the chairman of the panel recommends that it would be preferable to move to a full statutory inquiry, that will be done.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. When the Sedwill review specifically established that the Dickens letters had not been kept, did it also try to establish who had authorised their disposal, and if not, why not?

Theresa May: The review looked at the way in which the information that had come in from Geoffrey Dickens—and, indeed, any other information—had been handled, to ensure that it was being handled appropriately. The evidence that it found was that matters that should have been handed over the police for investigation were indeed handed to the police for investigation. As I have said, four pieces of information have subsequently been passed to the police because it was felt that it was now appropriate to do so. The review will look at the whole question of what the investigator did and what evidence they found. It will ensure that that investigation was done properly and that the handling of those matters was entirely appropriate, in order to give greater confidence precisely because questions have been raised.

Madeleine Moon: In the early 1980s, I was working in child protection in south Wales, and rumours such as those that have been circulating this weekend were also circulating then. Many of the people who were working in child protection in the 1980s have now retired. Will there be a confidential access line to enable such people to come forward and reveal what they saw happening at the time? Such material might not be suitable for a police inquiry, but it might well help to build a picture of what was prevalent then and of what engagement took place between the police and other authorities and those who had concerns about children being picked up at the end of the lane in large cars but found that they could get nowhere with those concerns.

Theresa May: It is precisely in order to learn the lessons that we need to know what was going on, and the inquiry is obviously going to have to look quite widely in order to find that out. It will have to look at the documentary evidence from the reviews that have taken place. I do not want to dictate to the inquiry what it should do or how it should undertake its work, but I am sure that the chairman and the panel will be alive to the fact that, in order to get to the truth, they will need to hear from those who have felt unable to speak out in the past.

Debbie Abrahams: I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. May I press her on the point about the missing 114 files and ask how the investigator could have concluded, without having had sight of them, that they had not been “removed or destroyed inappropriately”? Did the Home Secretary ask that question herself?

Theresa May: I made it absolutely clear earlier that that review was initiated by the permanent secretary, and that it reported to the permanent secretary. The review itself has been passed to the police, together with any appropriate evidence that it was felt right to pass to the
	police. Obviously, the review looked at a large number of files and put together evidence as to how these matters were dealt with. The whole question of how it looked at the judgments that were made by the investigator when he undertook the review is one of the issues that will be looked at by the review of the review.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. One consequence of her establishing an inquiry such as the one that she has announced today might be that victims hitherto unknown to the authorities will come forward with new or additional evidence on existing cases. Will she ensure that, as part of the terms of reference for the inquiry, a sensitive and confidential procedure will be put in place to allow victims, including new victims, to come forward and present their evidence in a confidential and sensitive manner and, when necessary, for that information to be shared not just with the inquiry but with criminal investigators?

Theresa May: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), I would expect the inquiry to recognise the need to have appropriate measures in place to enable evidence to come forward from those who might otherwise find it difficult to give evidence or who have been put off from giving it in the past for fear of the consequences.

Local Growth Deals

Greg Clark: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about growth deals.
	During the past four years, the Government’s long-term economic plan has turned the British economy around. The deficit has been cut by a third, employment is at a record high with 2 million more private sector jobs created, inflation is low and the UK is one of the fastest growing economies in the G7.
	One of the striking features of the recovery is the resurgence of our regional economies. Since June 2010, almost three quarters of net new jobs created have been outside London. In the west midlands, where I was this morning, export growth is higher than anywhere else in the country. In Yorkshire, more than 16,000 more businesses have sprung up since 2010, but our plan is for the long term and we want to go much further.
	National growth is the sum of local growth. For our nation to prosper, every town, every city, and every county needs to be able to fulfil its potential. It is hopeless to try to run proud, distinct and unique cities, towns and counties remotely from London. Instead, the people who live, work and do business in each area must be given the power to exercise local leadership and that is exactly what we have done through the city deals programme.
	The 39 growth deals we have agreed today build on the success of city deals and go much further. Responding to Lord Heseltine’s report, “No Stone Unturned”, the Chancellor committed at least £2 billion a year, for at least six years, of resources previously controlled by Departments in Whitehall. Control of this money will now be devolved to business and civic leaders across England. In response to this opportunity, local enterprise partnerships have developed action plans detailing how they would use those resources to drive local growth.
	The results have far exceeded expectations. The first year’s available funds were oversubscribed three and half times with proposals that were strong and credible. As a result, I am today announcing the transfer of £2 billion not just for the first year but for subsequent years too. The strength of the proposals means that I can today allocate a total of £6 billion. That includes major strategic investments that will continue over several years and commitments to projects that cannot start next year but for which planning and development can now get under way. That is still within the minimum of £12 billion that the Chancellor has made available, and I am now inviting all LEPs to begin immediately discussions on their next proposals, building on this substantial momentum.
	It is important to underline that we are not spending any more taxpayers’ money: this is a transfer of resources from central Government—one of the most centralised Governments in the world—to local communities, where they can get better value for money and make a bigger impact. Across all 39 deals as agreed so far, more than 500 projects will be funded by the local growth fund in partnership with local councils and private investors. They include more than 180 roads schemes, such as the dualling of the A421 in Milton Keynes and the building of a tunnel providing access to Wichelstowe in Swindon,
	allowing the creation of thousands of jobs and thousands of homes. They include the building or refurbishment of 17 railway stations, including a major upgrade to Wolverhampton station, the extension of the Metropolitan line through to Watford junction, and making Curzon Street in Birmingham ready for HS2, and linking the HS2 station directly to Wolverhampton by tram.
	The projects include the devolution of skills investment, such as an oil and gas academy in Redcar—hon. Members may have been wondering when Teesside would come up; the oil and gas academy will provide skills to people in the Tees valley—and an engineering training programme at the MIRA technology park. There will be investments in science and technology, including in the Cheshire science corridor at Alderley Park, a new metrology centre for the world motorsports cluster at Silverstone, where most of the world’s Formula 1 teams have gathered, and an expansion of the Bristol robotics hub.
	There will be a dedicated local small business advice and support service run in partnership with the chambers of commerce and other small business organisations in almost every part of England, and there will be further investments in house building, flood defences, tourist attractions, broadband infrastructure and further small business advice.
	The city of Glasgow is an indispensable member of the family of great British cities. Having seen the success of the city deals programme in England, I was greatly encouraged by the enthusiasm of Glasgow’s leaders to negotiate a city deal for their own city. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Scotland does not have local enterprise partnerships, I have concluded a heads of terms agreement with Glasgow that mirrors the English city deals and will result in £1.13 billion of investment in the Glasgow area, including a rail link to Glasgow airport, an innovative series of labour market schemes that will reduce unemployment, and an investment package in life sciences and small business support. Further details of the life science and business support package will be announced in the coming weeks.
	The components of each growth deal will transform the prospects of local economies. However, the whole is even bigger than the sum of the parts. This is a permanent change in the way we run our country and our economy. No longer will Whitehall monopolise decision making and shut out the role of local economic leadership. In this, the week of the 100th anniversary of the death of Joseph Chamberlain, the great mayor of a great city, we are reviving the spirit of local leadership and entrepreneurship on which our nation’s prosperity depends. I commend this statement and these growth deals to the House.

Andy Sawford: I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is courteous and constructive. That is part of the reason why he is respected by MPs in all parts of the House and by local authority leaders around the country, including in my own area. The problem is that the Minister is something of a lone voice in the Government, trying to convince his colleagues to help all the regions of the UK to fulfil their promise.
	For today’s announcement to represent the kind of progress that we need, three tests must be met. First, does it represent a truly ambitious devolution of power and funding? Secondly, have local communities, their businesses and councils determined the priorities? Thirdly, are today’s announcements new—is this new or additional investment? Of course, we welcome any investment. The Minister knows that I have supported the local enterprise partnership bid in my area, and people across Northamptonshire will welcome the announcement about Silverstone. However, today’s announcement is too little, too late from a Government playing catch-up.
	One of the first acts of this Government was the dogma-driven destruction of the regional development agencies, without providing a proper replacement. It was economic vandalism, pure and simple. What of the Government’s flagship regional growth fund, mired in chaos and delay, creating more losers than winners, leaving successful bidders waiting for two years to receive their money, and leaving hundreds of millions of pounds to gather dust? Sadly, after four years of this Government, it is little surprise that we have seen regional imbalances become starker and local areas held back.
	Lord Heseltine’s seminal report, “No Stone Unturned”, promised much and raised the hopes of many, but today’s announcement shows that the Government are happy to leave plenty of stones unturned all over the country. Will the Minister say how much of the funding that Lord Heseltine’s report recommended should be devolved has been devolved to local areas, and by how much today’s announcement falls short? The Minister is making the most of today’s announcement—he is one of life’s optimists—but deep down, surely he knows that although it signals some progress, it falls well short of what is needed, not only in scale but in terms of how the Government have gone about this.
	The second test is about who makes the decision. Today’s announcement is not real devolution; it is a list of centrally agreed projects. The criteria required shovel-ready schemes; local enterprise partnerships were given the nod on the understanding that schemes needed to be ready for next May, so that it looked like something was happening before the next election. Is it not time to move on from making these kinds of decisions in Whitehall, where local areas have to take part in a beauty parade so that Ministers can pick winners? Why not devolve the funds properly and let local areas decide the priorities? Why not let them make the decisions that are right for their economy, not just right for the Minister’s political timetable?
	The third test is whether this is new money. The Minister claims to be announcing £2 billion today, but it turns out that £1.1 billion has already been committed to local transport projects. Some £267 million of this money still has not been allocated. Will the Minister confirm when it will be allocated? As for the £6 billion figure, most of that, as the Minister well knows, is money from local sources that we would try to bring forward anyway; certainly, Labour local authorities are in the lead in doing that. [Interruption.] Well, the Minister has agreed that combined authorities in Labour areas all around the country are trying to show real leadership. Will he confirm how many unsuccessful bids there have been, and tell the House what estimate he has made of the total cost, to both local authorities and businesses, of putting together those failed bids? Is he
	aware that small businesses in particular have been put off applying by the amount of bureaucracy, and by the requirement to pay the cost of due diligence up front? Many successful applicants have not proceeded for the same reasons. What steps is he taking to address that?
	The Minister will be aware that the Leeds city region deal, which he personally signed, has been undermined by the Secretary of State’s announcement on referendums and precepts. Will the Minister reassure me that he will sort this mess out—a mess of the Government’s making—so that the Leeds transport fund can be properly established?
	In contrast to today’s much-hyped but severely limited announcements from the Government, Labour has committed to devolving £30 billion of funding from Whitehall to city and council regions to spend on skills, housing, transport, and business support, and to giving combined authorities the power to receive 100% of additional business rates revenue generated by growth to support infrastructure and future economic development. Whereas this Government are failing to deliver for businesses and communities across the country, a Labour Government will step up and genuinely pass down power and resources to local areas.

Greg Clark: What a ray of sunshine the hon. Gentleman is! I am grateful for his warm words, but if he thinks that I am a lone voice, I do not know who he thinks the people behind me and opposite him are. It is some “lone voice” that delivers £6 billion of funding from central Government to our local economies. If that is a lone voice, it seems a pretty strong one.
	Why is it that whenever Labour Front Benchers get the opportunity, they talk the regions down—I say this to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague on the Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), too—while their colleagues back in their constituencies are talking the regions up? Contrast the comments of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) with those of Labour leaders right around the country. The Labour leader of Leeds city council said today that this was tremendous news. He said:
	“We are glad that the government has now listened to our exceptionally strong case to put the financial power in our hands”,
	and that the announcement
	“could be truly transformational”.
	Sir Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham city council—I was with him in Birmingham this morning—said:
	“This is great news for Birmingham.”
	Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool, said:
	“This is great news for Liverpool.”
	Sir Richard Leese, the long-standing leader of Manchester city council, has said that there has been more progress towards the devolution of powers to the core cities in the last three years of the coalition than during 13 years of Labour. The only “lone voice” is the increasingly lonely voice of Labour Front Benchers opposing the increasingly unanimous view that we should be devolving power around the country in the way that we are. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get with that, because we have confidence in our cities and it is no wonder that the cities are losing confidence in their representation from the Labour party.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding that we have provided. I made it clear in my statement that we have gone further than was originally proposed. We made
	it clear that only £1 billion of the £2 billion figure was competitively available, but we have gone further by allocating £6 billion because the scheme was oversubscribed by 3.5:1, which means that the quality of the proposals was so high that we thought it would be ridiculous to say, “Come back in a year’s time.” Why not give investors confidence to get on with projects now so that they can create jobs around the country?
	It is worth saying that this is not just Government investment. For every £1 of Government investment there will be at least £2 of local investment as a result. The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Heseltine’s view on the scheme. I was with Lord Heseltine this morning, and he has travelled with me around almost every one of the 39 local enterprise partnerships to negotiate the deals. He expresses himself to be “thrilled” with the ambition that we have set through the programme, which exceeds what he thought possible. He is delighted with the programme.
	I have thought about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should go further. Of course we should go further, and the Chancellor has committed at least £2 billion a year, but at no point during the 13 years of the previous Government was any of this suggested. It is important that such things should be rigorously funded. I read the Adonis report, and the small print states that 100% of business rates should be devolved to the cities. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, half of business rates are now given to local authorities, which again did not happen during 13 years under Labour. Of course, £11 billion goes to the Treasury, so how will that £11 billion be found? Is there a black hole? In fact, the small print of the Adonis report states:
	“This should be revenue neutral to the Exchequer through offsetting reductions in government grants”
	to councils. In other words, it is a swizz: £11 billion of grant cuts to councils to pay for the headline with which he came up.
	The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we act on our ambitions by taking money from central Government to invest in local government, rather than the other way around.

Nicholas Soames: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on this extraordinarily ambitious announcement, which will command support across the whole country. I understand that not every constituency in the land will benefit from that ambition, so may I bring the leader of Mid Sussex district council and his economic development team to tell the Minister about an absolute belter of an idea that we have for the next round?

Greg Clark: I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend and his council leaders, whom I have met previously. The great advantage of my announcement today that we are immediately reopening negotiations for the next set of projects to build on the momentum is that that meeting will be very timely indeed.

Barry Sheerman: May I press the Minister? As co-chair of the Yorkshire group of MPs, I recently saw Lord Heseltine, and he did not look that excited to me about the Government’s policy. Is it not the truth that we have had four pretty barren
	years? I do not deny that there is some good stuff in the programme, but the fact of the matter is that we still have central direction: some £80 billion will be spent on High Speed 2, with no give or take on the local referendums that some of us would like to see on that expenditure. Could there not be more money for university partnerships with local enterprise partnerships and local business?

Greg Clark: I am not surprised that my friend Lord Heseltine was a bit downcast if he was meeting Labour Members, but he has cheered up since he has been in our company. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) should be cheered up that the chair of his local enterprise partnership said today that this is “a game-changing moment” for Leeds. We have worked tirelessly with businesses to play a leading role in the UK economy. His hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) referred to the Leeds city deal, and when he reads the documents that I sent to every Member he will see that a £1 billion transport fund is now available for the Leeds city region to invest in its own priorities for transport projects across the region. I was talking to Keith Wakefield, the leader of Leeds city council, last Thursday, and the deal exceeded even his expectations for what could be achieved. He is happy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be happy, too.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I wonder whether we could make slightly faster progress, because many Members wish to speak and this statement will run to about a quarter to 6 in order to make room for today’s business. Short questions and short answers would be very helpful.

Christopher Chope: What is in this announcement for Dorset, and will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about how much money we could get if we abandoned HS2? If we did so, we would have a lot more money for these schemes.

Greg Clark: I will not be tempted to go in that direction, because I think that HS2 is very important for further boosting our regional economy. Dorset does very well from the scheme. As my hon. Friend will know, the package of improvements for unlocking transport around Bournemouth airport is very important, and the port of Poole is receiving a lot of investment. There has been particular investment in skills in Dorset to ensure that its growing businesses can attract the people they need to meet the demands of their growing order books.

Nick Brown: The North East local enterprise partnership has said that it needs to create 60,000 new jobs by 2025 and that today’s announcement will create 4,000 by 2021. Where will the other 56,000 new jobs come from?

Greg Clark: The reason we are devolving powers in this way, and the reason the deal with the north-east has received such enthusiastic support, is that the best people to make these decisions, and the people who know about an area’s skills requirements and transport investment,
	are those who live and work there. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in these matters, the fact that one of our agreements is to improve the standard of secondary education across the north-east—to do what has been done in London by transforming the prospects of every young person. As someone who grew up in the north-east, I think that will be of immense value not just for young people, but for employers.

Alan Beith: I welcome the fact that both coalition parties are determined to raise standards in the north-east, but will that not also require a change of attitude by some Labour council leaders, such as those in Northumberland who are withdrawing support for travel for those young people seeking to improve their skills, even though they have to travel a long way to get to a further education college?

Greg Clark: It is true that one of the hallmarks of a successful local economy is people putting aside their differences and working together. One feature of the growth deals that have been negotiated is the remarkable ability of people who previously did not get on to put their differences aside and work together locally. I hope that will be the case in the north-east.

Kerry McCarthy: Some exciting stuff is being bid for in Bristol, such as robotics and the use of composites in marine technology, as well as much-needed investment in public transport, but may I ask the Minister about flexibility? When money has previously been offered by local government, local people have been told that there is no scope for negotiation and that all the money will simply be taken away if they object to the proposed schemes.

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; she gives an accurate description of what happened under the previous Labour Government. One of the differences we are making is giving the flexibility to allow good and capable local enterprise partnerships to set their own priorities, so if an important economic opportunity arises, they should be able to change things around. That will be available to Bristol, as it will to other places across the country.

Anne McIntosh: I enthusiastically welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly the support for the transformation of the Food and Environment Research Agency in Sand Hutton. For that transformation to succeed, smooth and safe access to the A64 will be imperative. What does he understand by the term “shovel-ready projects” that qualify before the highways authority will allocate any of that money to road improvements?

Greg Clark: The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) asked me about that. It is prudent that money should be spent on projects that are available to have that investment; otherwise we are tying up money that could be used elsewhere. A project needs to be deliverable in 2015-16 if that is what the funding is for. The great advantage of announcing a pipeline of future schemes is that if they are not quite ready yet, they will be able to have the green light shone so that they can go forward in future.

Richard Burden: There are some excellent projects in the Birmingham and Solihull area in today’s announcement, not least the long-awaited Longbridge connectivity package in my area. Will the Minister join me in saying thank you to Labour-run Birmingham city council and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP for working with the Longbridge connectivity group to make this happen, in contrast with the rather disengaged attitude of the former Conservative city council administration? Does that indicate to him that where local partnerships work, the Government should be more ambitious in devolving power? Is not that the real message of the Adonis report?

Greg Clark: The attitude behind the hon. Gentleman’s question is not the attitude that has caused the success of the Birmingham and Solihull deal. People have not been partisan or parochial; they have worked together and not sought to jockey for political advantage. That is the right approach to take.

Martin Vickers: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, in which he confirms the Government’s commitment to the north of England. I particularly welcome the investment at the CATCH—Centre for the Assessment of Technical Competence—training facility at Stallingborough in my constituency. That is a partnership between the public and private sectors. Does he agree that those types of partnerships are the way forward if we are to develop the skills that northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area need in the modern economy?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituency, and I have visited him and his colleagues on the Humber many times. He is one of the people who have been instrumental in forging a consensus between the north bank and the south bank of the Humber. Now that that consensus exists, the Humber is motoring; we can see the progress and momentum behind the economy there. He has played his part in that, and I congratulate him on it.

Alex Cunningham: The Minister is a South Bank lad, so he should have some understanding of the challenges faced in the Tees valley. His statement tells of helping to create 1,000 jobs by 2021—in other words, 1,000 jobs in seven years. That is less than 20% of the total number of unemployed people in Stockton, one of five boroughs in the Tees valley. Why has he not come up with something more substantial from the Government in terms of investment for his former community?

Greg Clark: The jobs figures that the hon. Gentleman cites are for the first year’s investment only. We have taken a conservative view. The Government do not create jobs directly; it is up to businesses to create jobs. The business community in the Tees valley, very ably led by Sandy Anderson, have come forward with a set of proposals that they believe will propel the Tees valley forward, and we have been able to say yes to them.

Penny Mordaunt: Does the Minister agree that Government investment in infrastructure projects such as Tipner, and in marine
	manufacturing and status projects such as Sir Ben Ainslie’s America’s cup challenge, is transforming Portsmouth into the maritime heart of the UK, and that the next focus must be a new life and a new order book for Portsmouth’s shipyard?

Greg Clark: I commend my hon. Friend, who has been an absolutely indefatigable campaigner for Portsmouth. That resulted in the Portsmouth city deal, which, as she has rightly said, involved the release of Ministry of Defence land that was not being used to make it available for the marine engineering businesses whose future is very bright across the south coast, and particularly in Portsmouth.

Kevan Jones: The devolution of finance must not only be seen to be accountable but actually be accountable. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had about the appointment of Paul Woolston, the chair of the north-east LEP, who has now been appointed to Middleton Enterprises, a company run by Jeremy Middleton, a well-known Conservative who is also on the LEP investment board? We also learned last week that the chief executive is now working for a Middleton company. Have the Minister or his Department had any discussions about this?

Greg Clark: Of course, I meet the local enterprise partnerships—all of them—regularly to discuss the kinds of deals we are announcing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the local authority leaders work very closely together—in fact, his own local authority leader, Simon Henig, is the chair of the combined authority—and that they are democratically elected, and I know that they make sure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent.

Bob Neill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend, both politically and personally, on his commitment to delivering a further significant tranche of devolution? Does he agree that, in order to see this through, it is very important not only that local authorities abandon the tribalism in evidence on the Opposition Benches, but that they make maximum entrepreneurial use of the other important devolutionary power we gave them—the power of general competence in the Localism Act 2011, which will complement this tranche of measures?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has personal responsibility for that power, since he, with me, piloted the Localism Bill through Committee. The power is available to local authorities and I hope they will take it up.

Lucy Powell: May I first respond to the Minister’s more partisan points before I move on to the less partisan point? People in Manchester will judge his Government on all of their policies, including local government cuts 10 times those of other, more prosperous areas and the welfare reform agenda that is hitting my constituents the hardest. On the less partisan point, which is what I had hoped the statement would be about, given the reports by Michael Heseltine and Lord Adonis and today’s statement by Sir Richard Leese, we now really have cross-party consensus
	for dramatic decentralisation, and I hope the Minister will ensure that it goes further and faster over the coming months.

Greg Clark: I had also hoped that this statement would be less partisan, but that was not entirely evident from the earlier exchanges. Greater Manchester has been doing very well in recent years. If we look at the cross-party leadership of Greater Manchester, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour leaders, we will see that they get on well together in the interests of Greater Manchester. The hon. Lady should take a leaf out of their book.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the Government, because this is a really important step towards devolution and local decision making. I particularly welcome the contribution to Dorset, which will enable it to build on its already great strengths with its mixed economy. Should any partnerships anywhere in the country run into obstacles in making proposed investments in a timely fashion, will the Department be able to support them? I want to see action, not just words.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful for her kind words. That is one of the reasons we have established a pipeline so that, if there is a delay in any particular project, another will be ready to take its place and be implemented. Dorset has a huge contribution to make. I have mentioned some of the schemes. One of the very interesting and exciting ones for the visitor economy in Dorset will be a new visitor attraction called Jurassica, which will feature the great strengths of the Jurassic coast. It has been suggested that some exhibits might come from the Opposition Benches, but I am sure the fossils will be from Dorset.

Andrew Love: Does the Minister agree that this modest but welcome proposal is certainly not a giant step towards rebalancing the British economy? Will he also confirm, as I think he was angling towards doing in an earlier response, that there is in fact no new money involved in today’s proposal? I think that the focus on affordable housing in London is correct, but could not the Government have done more about the borrowing powers of local authorities, to really get affordable housing going in London, where it is much needed?

Greg Clark: If the hon. Gentleman reads the small print, he will see that that is part of the announcement. I do not agree with his assessment. He should talk to the leader of Leeds council, who has said:
	“This deal spells the beginning of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era which will allow the north”—
	he is from Leeds—
	“to truly control its own destiny.”
	Such endorsements show that this is a pretty significant set of changes.

Henry Smith: I was delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to Gatwick this morning, where the Coast to Capital LEP
	bid of £202 million was announced. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that future growth deals will continue to benefit the county areas, as well as our great cities?

Greg Clark: They certainly will. It is very important that our cities should prosper and succeed, but we have huge strengths in our counties and districts, which is why I am particularly pleased that we could extend city deals to all parts of England through what we have agreed in the programme today.

Toby Perkins: In Chesterfield, we are grateful that the Minister has approved two of the proposals brought forward by our local enterprise partnership. Does he not recognise, however, that real devolution is not about the Minister sitting in Whitehall and saying which proposals he agrees with? It is about devolving the funds and letting the responsibility lie with local authorities, precisely as Lord Adonis has proposed. Will the Minister acknowledge at the Dispatch Box that what he is proposing is a third of the size of the devolution proposed by Lord Adonis and does not put responsibility and powers truly in the hands of local authorities? Why does the Minister not follow Lord Adonis’s recommendations?

Greg Clark: No, the hon. Gentleman is not right. He is right that Chesterfield will have substantial investment in skills, which will be very important for his constituents, but he is wrong to say that there will no flexibilities. It will be open to the local enterprise partnership to bring forward projects, as it has done—it made those proposals—and to vary them if it thinks that that is in the local interest.

Paul Uppal: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the people of Wolverhampton are very heartened by this news, particularly as people have tried to talk down the city in the past? In that vein, will he elaborate on the Wolverhampton interchange, which will help private enterprise and connectivity in the 21st century?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend has been campaigning for improvements to the Wolverhampton interchange for all the time he has been in the House, and it is a great day for him to succeed in that campaigning. The interchange is supported by businesses locally, and it will mean big advantages not just for Wolverhampton but for the whole of the region because of the connections that will be made—for example, from Wolverhampton to the new HS2 station.

Stephen McCabe: It is fantastic and so unusual to have an opportunity to heap praise on the Minister, but with the general election 303 days away, how much of the £350 million will Greater Birmingham see before the election, and when might we expect our first down payment on Selly Oak’s life sciences park?

Greg Clark: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words—it might strike a different tone if he took his place on the Front Bench. There will be a cheque for £63 million of the funding for Greater Birmingham and Solihull at the beginning of the next financial year, but all the rest will be committed. I am
	sure he would be delighted to come to the contract signing ceremony, it will be written down, just in case people do not trust us.

Mark Menzies: This afternoon, I was with the Secretary of State for Transport in Fylde, where we announced the Lytham St Annes to M55 link road. Will the Minister assure the people of Fylde, who are very excited about this announcement, that this shovel-ready project will indeed get under way in 2015-16, as planned?

Greg Clark: It will, indeed.

Andrew Gwynne: The process of devolution to Greater Manchester was of course started in 2008 under a Labour Government, but I certainly welcome today’s announcement, including the funds for Tameside college, which serves my constituency. If the Minister has any unallocated funds, may I beg him to look again at the small town centre initiative as part of the Greater Manchester package? That package includes a shovel-ready scheme for the Denton link road that would provide important access to the Oldham Batteries employment site, which has lain derelict for 10 years, but is an important piece of our regeneration jigsaw.

Greg Clark: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was the last Labour Member standing, while there are still plenty of Government Members standing. The great advantage of the arrangements is that he can take his case to Greater Manchester. It should no longer require a Minister to agree to a local project; as a result of this deal, the people who now have the budgets to implement such things are those in the Greater Manchester authority.

Nicola Blackwood: Like our city deal, Oxfordshire’s growth deal is great news for local people: it will deliver more jobs and more housing; it will close the skills gap by delivering vital skills opportunities; and it will take us a big step closer to delivering flood protection. I do not want to seem ungrateful, but will the Minister also consider vital A34 improvements at every future opportunity, because they are essential to our long-term local economic plan?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is nothing if not tenacious. She has had a city deal, she has had a growth deal and now she wants another one. I have said that we will reopen negotiations, and it sounds as though Oxfordshire will be first in the queue.

Sarah Newton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend because he has truly reached parts of England that the last Labour Government failed to reach. The commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds to Cornwall today is really welcome, but does he agree that the power shift from Whitehall to Cornwall is equally vital because it ensures that local decisions can be made for the benefit of our local economy?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is a great champion of Cornwall. It is crazy to try to run a place as distinctive as Cornwall from Whitehall and Westminster. Quite apart from the investment that is
	being made, we are giving a big vote of confidence to Cornwall and its ability to run its own affairs. I am delighted to be doing that.

Jason McCartney: Roger Marsh, the chair of the local enterprise partnership that includes Kirklees, has said:
	“This is a game-changing moment for the Leeds City Region.”
	Does the Minister agree that, with the £1 billion of investment for the West Yorkshire Plus transport fund, the expansion of the skilled work force, business grants for growth and two days of the grandest of Grands Départs in Yorkshire, this really has been a momentous weekend for Yorkshire?

Greg Clark: It has been a fantastic weekend for Yorkshire. This is a Grand Départ of our own: we are setting off in a very different direction from that which we inherited. For 100 years, power has been sucked away from places such as Yorkshire; we are sending it back.

Ben Gummer: My right hon. Friend is a worthy heir of Joseph Chamberlain. In Norfolk and Suffolk, we are thrilled by the investment that is coming back to the region as a result of his announcement. Will he confirm that items of expenditure that are not on the current list but that are still on the wish lists of LEPs can be brought forward in a very short period?

Greg Clark: I certainly can confirm that. I look forward to meeting the New Anglia local enterprise partnership to take those matters forward.

Robin Walker: I thank the Minister for investing tens of millions of pounds in unlocking the economic potential of world-class Worcestershire, particularly through skills and transport improvements such as the Worcestershire Parkway station and the Southern link in Worcester. I give him particular thanks for the fact that the money is coming to Worcester rather than going to Wichita, as some Opposition Front Benchers have suggested.

Greg Clark: It is indeed. One of the great advantages of travelling around the country negotiating these deals is that one has the chance to meet people in the places they represent. There is no substitute for having a bit of local knowledge.

Fiona Bruce: I welcome the tremendous £45 million funding announcement for the Congleton link road. Congleton is an aspirational town and Ministers listened to the business case that was put forward by business leaders, East Cheshire chamber of commerce, the local authority, the LEP and elected representatives. Does that not prove that when there is effective joint working, we can really make a difference to the prosperity of the people we represent?

Greg Clark: We certainly can. Cheshire is a vital part of the economy, particularly given its investment in science and the possibilities that that brings. It was good to be able to reinforce that through the deal that we negotiated.

Peter Luff: One of the biggest constraints on the economic growth of Worcestershire is the inadequacy of its rail links. I therefore thank the Minister warmly for his announcement of funding for the new Worcestershire Parkway station, which enables me to declare victory in the 25-year campaign to get that vital station built.

Greg Clark: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am just sorry that he will not be able to use it for his commute to this place. However, it will be a good monument to his campaigning over the years.

Greg Mulholland: The unforgettable amazing two days in which the Tour de France went through Yorkshire showed what can be delivered by Welcome to Yorkshire, the local councils, the local businesses and the local people if they are allowed to get on with it. This announcement is great news for the Leeds city region, but will the Minister confirm that it will allow us to make the decisions that he knows we need to make with regard to transport, including a link to Leeds Bradford international airport and getting something better than the trolleybus?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right to say that with £1 billion of investment available, it is up to Leeds, through the combined authority and the local enterprise partnership, to make those choices in a way that it could not before.

Peter Bone: As the shadow Minister will know, in north Northamptonshire unemployment has come down by more than a third in the past 12 months, and £50 million private investment has just been made in Rushden Lakes. Today the Government have made announcements about Stanton Cross, the Tresham institute and the Isham bypass. Next time will the Minister ensure that his statement is known about more widely in advance so that more Labour MPs can turn up? I have counted four Labour Back Benchers, whereas the Government Benches are packed.

Greg Clark: It is very disappointing; I sometimes feel that Opposition Members do not want to hear good news, whether it is about the national economy or local economies. WE have Deputy Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow so they have another chance to come, and I press them to do so.

John Glen: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the commitment to fund Porton science park. This welcome measure will breathe life into the life sciences sector in Wiltshire. Does he recognise that it will be extremely helpful in securing additional funding from the European structural investment fund so that Wiltshire can secure further development of this vital project?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. One of the other decisions we have taken is to align European funds with local enterprise partnerships, so that this kind of joint investment, which makes administrative and economic sense, can take place.

Richard Graham: In what has become an intense competition to welcome the Minister’s announcement most warmly, may I make a bid on behalf of Gloucestershire—I think I am the only Member from the county here—to welcome the Gloucestershire growth deal, which includes a real opportunity to generate more Gloucesterpreneurs and some great participation in nuclear and green projects too? My right hon. Friend will know that I particularly welcome the commitment to finance the last remaining slug of the new bus station, which is the transport hub of the county, as it will make a huge difference. Does he agree that the autumn statement and the Budget provide opportunities for further bids for such projects as the Blackfriars regeneration?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is nothing if not tenacious. I enjoyed my visit to Gloucester with him a little while ago. There will be other opportunities, because negotiations will continue. I dare say that Gloucestershire will build on its success.

Stewart Jackson: I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular on transport improvements on the A47 in north-east Peterborough and on the food manufacturing centre of excellence at Peterborough regional college. The imperative for this Government investment should be its impact on the labour market, so will the Minister give an undertaking to encourage LEPs to work collaboratively—for example, with the Department for Work and Pensions to have an impact on unemployment among young people, particularly those not in education, employment or training?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to extend more broadly the next phase of negotiations and discussions, so that where local authorities and businesses can make a real difference to some of our intractable social problems they will be given the chance to show that they can do that.

James Morris: I welcome the black country local growth deal announced today, particularly the new advanced science and technology centre at Halesowen college, which will allow us to upskill local people in the black country to get the jobs that are available. Does the Minister agree that this type of initiative is crucial to areas such as the black country, where we need to increase skills and generate growth?

Greg Clark: I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. “Made in the black country” is a brand that is proudly marketed around the world, and people have confidence in the quality that that implies, but it is important that the next generation of people in the area are trained in those skills so that that reputation for quality can continue. The investment will help with that.

Rob Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tireless work to deliver this huge local and regional boost to economies. I commend the additional investment in Reading and urge him to pursue a third Thames bridge and semi-fast Crossrail, both strongly supported by business, for the next round.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is no slouch when it comes to local campaigning. He has been a hugely successful advocate for Reading, and I dare say that that will continue in the future.

Stuart Andrew: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen consistently and now stands at 2%. That is good news and shows that businesses are investing, but we need good transport links to get people to work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement of the West Yorkshire Plus transport fund is a step change in the ability of local providers to get people moving around Yorkshire, particularly given the wonderful advert we had this weekend, which we have already heard about?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone in Yorkshire agrees that the £1 billion fund will make a transformational difference to Yorkshire’s economic prospects.

Richard Harrington: I commend the Minister for his statement, particularly the news about the Croxley rail link, which will link Watford Junction station with the Metropolitan line. Will he write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to prioritise the redevelopment of Watford Junction station, so that the whole of Watford has a 21st-century interchange?

Greg Clark: That is the great advantage of these investments: investment in transport can have other consequences for regeneration. It is one of the big reasons why taking things out of Whitehall silos and making decisions in the round is so much more effective. I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend about that outside the Chamber.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank the Minister for the care he has taken over the detail of the bids, and particularly for backing the winner in respect of Lancaster university’s innovations park and the £17 million of real money coming to
	Lancashire to support it. I remind my right hon. Friend that there was also a proposal to move junction 33 of the M6, which was also part and parcel of this growth bid.

Greg Clark: The good news is that when the negotiations open, that proposal can be considered, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to persuade his area’s local enterprise partnership to put it forward.

Damian Hinds: I particularly welcome the £4 million for a construction skills centre at Whitehill in Bordon—a great investment in the future of the people of this town. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging more employers to look at the exciting opportunities in the area?

Greg Clark: I will. One of the striking features of this growth deal is how many local employers are committing their own time and enthusiasm to working to ensure that people have the skills that they will want to employ in the years to come. That is good for everyone locally.

Justin Tomlinson: Today’s announcement is a crucial boost to Swindon’s economic regeneration. Does the Minister agree that the process rewards forward-thinking areas that develop shovel-ready plans for growth?

Greg Clark: I do indeed. Swindon is the definition of forward thinking, and it is ably represented by both my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) with whom he works so closely.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry to disappoint the remaining Members who wanted to speak. I hope they will be more fortunate in catching the Speaker’s eye next time. I am sure that the Minister will be grateful to receive letters of congratulation. We really must move on to other business now.

Point of Order

Phil Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), visited the new Hitachi factory in my constituency this morning to make a Government announcement. He was joined by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), but neither of them informed me of their intention to visit my constituency, although the hon. Member for Stockton South informed me of his visit after the event. What can you do or say to ensure that hon. Members, and especially Ministers, show the common courtesy of informing the sitting Member of their intent to visit his or her constituency before the visit happens?

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for that point of order and for prior notice of it. I would like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has made it clear on several occasions recently that if any hon. Member intends to make an official visit to another hon. Member’s constituency on political business, they are under a strong obligation to inform the constituency Member as far in advance as possible. Ministers in particular, with their private office to help them organise their business, have no excuse for failing to fulfil this obligation. I sincerely hope that this will not happen again. Mr Speaker has been quite clear about this.

James Wharton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to cause discomfort to any hon. Member in this place. My role this morning was to drop off my hon. Friend the Minister, at which point I tweeted that I had dropped him off. Realising that I was in the constituency of a neighbouring Member, I asked my office to inform him by e-mail. Are hon. Members obliged to inform other hon. Members when they drive through or drop people off in their constituencies?

Dawn Primarolo: That is really not a point of order, Mr Wharton. I think we are all grown-up enough to know what the conventions imply about visiting another Member’s constituency. We do not need to go this level of detail in the form of a point of order at this time. We shall move on.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Office for Budget Responsibility (Political Party Policy Costings) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to amend the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 to allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to scrutinise and certificate the policy costings of political parties represented in the House of Commons.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to provide that certain offences committed towards members of the armed forces shall be treated as aggravated; to prohibit discrimination against individuals in terms of provision of goods and services on the grounds that they are members of the armed forces; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Jobs Guarantee Scheme (Research) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into a scheme designed to provide guaranteed employment for those aged 18 to 24 and those aged 25 and over who have been in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance for one year or for two years; to require the Secretary of State to report the results of the research to the House of Commons within six months of completion; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 36).

Terms and Conditions (Migrant Workers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to provide that employers may not offer to migrant workers terms and conditions less favourable than those offered to UK nationals for the same employment; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals Bill (Betting Shops) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to create a new planning use class for betting shops with fixed odds betting terminals, which would require the granting of planning permission; to provide that local planning authorities assess demand for fixed odds betting terminal betting shops when considering applications for premises in that planning use class and place a cap on the number of such shops for which planning permission may be granted in any area; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 38).

High Cost Credit Services (Retail Premises) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to create a new planning use class for retail premises used to provide high cost credit services, which would require the granting of planning permission; to provide that local planning authorities assess demand for retail premises used to provide high cost credit services when considering applications for premises in that planning use class and
	place a cap on the number of such shops for which planning permission may be granted in any area; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 (Repeal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to repeal the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Letting Agents (Fees) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to prohibit the charging to tenants by letting agents of annual tenancy renewal fees; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Firearm and Shotgun Licensing (Domestic Violence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Alan Campbell, on behalf of Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to prohibit the granting of licences for firearms and shotguns to persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2015, and to be printed (Bill 42).

Asylum (Time Limit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to prohibit the granting of licences for firearms and shotguns to persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson and Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to make provision for criminal sanctions against those who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 44).

House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to provide for a maximum limit on the number of Peers entitled to vote in the House of Lords; and to provide for a moratorium on new appointments.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 45).

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Robert Syms, Mr Stewart Jackson, Mr Peter Bone and Mr Andrew Turner, presented a Bill to require an independent audit of the benefits and costs of UK membership of the European Union.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed (Bill 46).

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson and Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to taxpayer-funded benefits.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 47).

HS2 Funding Referendum Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Sir John Randall, Michael Fabricant, Mr James Gray, Mr Peter Bone and Mr Andrew Turner, presented a Bill to make provision for a national referendum on whether the proposed construction of the HS2 railway should be supported financially by the UK taxpayer.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Overseas Voters Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Peter Luff, Mr Robert Syms, Mr Stewart Jackson and Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to make provision to facilitate an increase in the registration of voters resident overseas who are eligible to participate in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections; to extend the criteria for eligibility to register as an overseas voter and to enable those registered as overseas voters to cast their votes through use of the internet; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 49).

Convicted Prisoners Voting Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson and Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to make provision for rules relating to the exclusion of convicted prisoners from participation in Parliamentary and Local Elections.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 December, and to be printed (Bill 50).

European Parliament Elections Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Mr Andrew Turner, presented a Bill to make provision for an open list system for elections to the European Parliament.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 51).

Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Gerald Howarth, Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Bernard Jenkin, Mr James Gray, Sir Peter Luff and Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to make provision about the meeting by the United Kingdom of the target for defence expenditure to constitute a minimum of 2% of Gross Domestic Product; to make provision that the definition of defence expenditure is subject to independent verification; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 September, and to be printed (Bill 52).

UK Borders Control Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to ensure that the United Kingdom has absolute control over the right to prevent non-UK citizens from entering the United Kingdom; to determine the circumstances in which non-UK citizens may be required to leave the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 53).

School Admissions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to ensure that pupils with a parent with a terminal or seriously disabling illness receive priority in the admissions process to maintained schools in England.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed (Bill 54).

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the nonbuilt environment and to limit the protection for bat habitats in the built environment where the presence of bats has a significant adverse impact upon the users of buildings.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 55).

Working Time Directive (Limitation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to limit the application of the EU Working Time Directive; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 56).

Employment Rights Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for a statutory code of practice to clarify and simplify the law relating to protection against unfair dismissal of miscreant employees; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 57).

Free Movement of Persons into the United Kingdom (Derogation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, Bob Blackman, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Aidan Burley, Mr Stewart Jackson and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to repeal Articles 21 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EC Directive 2004/38/EC and EC Regulation 492/2011.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 58).

British Bill of Rights and Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, Bob Blackman, David T. C. Davies, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Aidan Burley, Mr Stewart Jackson and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for an application to the Council of Europe to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the introduction of a British Bill of Rights.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 59).

Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Bob Blackman, Mr David Davis, Mr Aidan Burley and Mr Stewart Jackson and Phillip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the cessation of subsidies for the development of wind farms.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, David T. C. Davies, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Aidan Burley, Mr Stewart Jackson and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and for its functions to be absorbed into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 61).

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, Bob Blackman, Mr David Davis, David T. C. Davies, Mr Aidan Burley, Mr Stewart Jackson and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to exclude from the United Kingdom foreign nationals found guilty of a criminal offence committed in the United Kingdom.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 62).

Hospital Car Parking Charges (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Bob Blackman, Mr David Davis, Fiona Bruce, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Aidan Burley and Mr Stewart Jackson Davis, presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 63).

BBC Privatisation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Aidan Burley and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation by providing shares in the Corporation to all licence fee payers.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 64).

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Aidan Burley, Mr Stewart Jackson and Phillip Davies presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and its responsibilities to be allocated to other Departments of State.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 65).

Housing (Affordability, Supply and Tenant Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Jeremy Corby, John Cryer, Mrs Mary Glindon, Jonathan Edwards, Mr Elfyn Llwyd and John McDonnell, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to commission a programme of research into reducing rent levels in the private rented sector, improving terms and conditions for tenants, increasing housing supply, and providing a large-scale programme of sustainable council housing in England; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of completion of the research; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 66).

Railways Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Hywel Williams, Ian Lavery, Jeremy Corbyn, Jonathan Edwards, Katy Clark, John Cryer, John McDonnell, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Kelvin Hopkins, Grahame M. Morris and Martin Caton, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to assume control of passenger rail franchises when they come up for renewal; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 67).

Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Jeremy Corbyn, Katy Clark, Grahame M. Morris, Mr John Leech, John McDonnell, Mr Elfyn Llwyd and Ms Margaret Ritchie, presented a Bill to promote public ownership of public services; to introduce a presumption in favour of service provision by public sector and not-for-profit entities; and to put in place mechanisms to increase the accountability, transparency and public control of public services, including those operated by private companies.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 68).

Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by Valerie Vaz, Yasmin Qureshi, Tim Farron, Glenda Jackson and Barbara Keeley, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to provide that Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PHSE) be a statutory requirement for all state funded schools; for PHSE to include Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) and education on ending violence against women and girls; to provide for initial and continuing teacher education and guidance on best practice for delivering and inspecting PSHE and SRE education; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 October, and to be printed (Bill 69).

Football Governance Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Damian Collins, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Tracey Crouch, Mr Jim Cunningham, Philip Davies, Paul Farrelly, Penny Mordaunt, Steve Rotheram, Mr Adrian Saunders, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Justin Tomlinson and Mr John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to require professional and semi-professional football clubs in England to disclose the identity of their owners; to give the Football Association powers to block the ownership of a club by anyone whom they consider is not a fit and proper person; to require all creditors of a football club to be compensated equally should the club go into administration; to facilitate the raising by supporters’ organisations of the finance required to acquire a controlling stake in a football club; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed (Bill 70).

Road Traffic Regulation (Temporary Closure for Filming) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Iain Stewart, supported by Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Stuart Andrew, Eric Ollerenshaw and Karen Lumley, presented a Bill to make provision for the restriction or regulation of traffic on roads in connection with filming; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed (Bill 71) with explanatory notes (Bill 71-EN).

Estimates
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

ESTIMATES 2014-15
	 — 
	DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Universal Credit

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2013-14, Universal Credit implementation: monitoring DWP’s performance in 2012-13, HC 1209 and the Government response, HC 426.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions:
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £45,438,318,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £74,721,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £44,850,071,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(John Penrose.)

Anne Begg: Universal credit is a major welfare reform. It will eventually replace tax credits and most existing working-age benefits, including out-of-work benefits and housing benefit. It is estimated that, by the time it is fully implemented, universal credit—or UC, as it has now become known—will be paid to 7.7 million households, and we hope that that will be the case.
	During last week’s debate on work and pensions, I said that the problem with welfare reform was that it was devilishly complex, took a long time to implement, and always had unintended consequences. I think that all three of those things apply to universal credit. We can agree that its design should bring some advantages. It should improve the position of claimants when they move into work or take on more work, because their benefit will be reduced gradually on the basis of how much they earn, rather than suddenly being cut off if their working hours exceed a certain limit. It should remove many of the “cliff edges” that exist in the current system. Because it is both an in-work and an out-of-work benefit, it will remove the constant applying and reapplying for different benefits as someone moves in and out of work.
	However, it is wrong to talk about UC’s “simplifying the benefits system”, because that is not possible to any significant extent. The benefits system is complex because people’s lives are complex, and are constantly changing. UC will be a more streamlined system, but it will not be a simple one. That is clear from the problems that have been encountered in efforts to implement it. The national roll-out of new UC claims was due to take place between October 2013 and April this year. Existing claimants of “legacy benefits”, including jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and housing benefit, would then be migrated to UC between April 2014 and the end of 2017. However, problems with IT systems meant that major changes to the implementation
	timetable were made in July 2013, and then again in December last year. That slowed down the process dramatically.
	UC claims were introduced on a very small scale from April last year in a few jobcentres in Greater Manchester, which were initially called “pathfinders” but are now referred to by the Department for Work and Pensions as “live service sites”. In the event, national roll-out from last October amounted to the expansion of new UC claims to only a further six jobcentres around Britain, and it has recently been expanded again to a further nine sites in the north-west, bringing the total number of jobcentres where UC is available to 19, less than 3% of the jobcentre network—hardly a national roll-out.
	New claims to UC are now not expected to be extended to the whole of Great Britain until 2016 and the bulk of existing claimants will not be moved on to UC until 2016-17. The process will not be completed until later than the original target date of 2017.
	The Secretary of State brushes aside any criticism of the very small number of people who are on UC by arguing that the Government are
	“taking a careful and controlled approach to achieve a safe and secure delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 645.]
	I think we would all agree that it is right to ensure that the system works properly before extending it, but, as the Work and Pensions Committee said, there is a difference between cautious progress and a snail’s pace.
	The facts are clear. Since UC started in April last year fewer than 7,000 claims have been processed. By comparison, more than 1 million people claim just jobseeker’s allowance. In January this year alone, there were almost 250,000 new jobseeker’s allowance claims. That is how much churn there is in the system. Almost all the 7,000 UC claims are from people in the simplest circumstances: young, single, and usually recently unemployed. Last week, 15 months after UC began, claims from couples started to be accepted—but only in a handful of the live service sites. We have been told that claims from people with children will begin “later in the summer”. We all know what Parliament’s timetables are like and we wonder when “summer” actually is, so can the Minister give us an idea of what “summer” means in this context?
	Achieving only that tiny number of claims to date illustrates the scale of the challenge still facing the Government in trying to replace existing working-age benefits and tax credits with UC by 2017, including migrating all the claimants of the relevant existing benefits over to it. Given the excruciatingly slow pace of roll-out to date, it is hard to see how the target date can be met.
	To put this into context, the other new benefit which has had its implementation slowed down is the personal independence payment, although even PIP has more new claims in payment than UC. By March this year 83,900 PIP decisions had been made, which is far higher than for UC, and that involves a smaller cohort and has been done in a shorter time scale. In our report, we asked the DWP to set out its revised estimates of UC caseloads and costs for each year to 2017-18, to reassure Parliament and the public that there is a clear and detailed revised implementation plan. The Government’s response to our report did not include any of that information.
	The problems with implementing UC arise largely from failure to get the IT right. Problems with Government IT systems have happened so frequently that they have almost become a cliché, but the UC IT challenge seems especially difficult to tackle and to be throwing up particular challenges. Some £40 million in IT expenditure had to be written off in 2012-13, and a further £90 million is being “written down” in five years instead of 15 because the useful life of the software is much shorter than anticipated. That may seem like an accounting detail, but it shows that the use of public money has not been cost-effective to date, and a great deal more public money is at stake in the UC programme.
	The Government’s current approach to the IT problems is to continue to spend millions of pounds—between £37 million and £58 million—on the old IT system during 2014 to extend its functionality so that it can cope with a wider range of claimants in the live service sites. At the same time, extensive sums are being spent on developing IT for the long term. That has had various names and various incarnations: first it was called “the digital solution”, then “the end-state solution”, and the latest terminology seems to be the “enhanced digital service”. Unfortunately we on the Select Committee still do not know what that means. The Secretary of State’s explanation last Monday did not help us clear that up.
	The National Audit Office has summed up very well the lack of information available on how the IT for UC will be taken forward. It said last December that the uncertainties include the following: how it will work; when it will be ready; how much it will cost; and who will do the work to develop and build it. We still do not have answers to any of these questions. It would be helpful if the Minister provided some answers to those key points in her response to the debate, because the Work and Pensions Committee has still not had an explanation.
	We have asked Ministers for more information about the IT during three evidence sessions over the space of nine months. We repeated this request in our report, including asking the DWP to set out the costs of the IT development work, because the published information on IT costs does not take us beyond November 2014, but we received no answers in the Government response to our report. All it said was that UC will be delivered via
	“a multi-channel service that makes greater use of modern technology to ensure the system is as effective, simple and transparent as possible.”
	I still do not know what that means, and I do not know if anybody does.
	The one thing we do know is that the new “enhanced digital service” will not be ready to test before the end of this year, and even then it will only be tested on 100 claimants to start with. We still have no indication of when it will be possible to test it on a bigger and more representative group of claimants. The challenge of getting from an IT system that is capable of processing 100 claims by the end of 2014 to one that can deal with frequently changing claims from more than 7 million households by 2017 is clearly an extreme one.
	Our report recommended that, given the small number of people currently claiming UC, the Government should consider whether it would be a better use of taxpayers’ money to abandon further development of the existing
	system and focus solely on the end-state solution. The Government said in answer to a recent parliamentary question—although this was not set out in their response to our report—that the enhanced digital service will be integrated with the existing UC service where
	“it is both practical and operationally sensible”—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]
	Again, I am not sure what that means, so perhaps the Minister can translate those vague phrases into something more meaningful and detailed when she responds.

David Mowat: The Chairman of the Select Committee talks about the enhanced digital solution, which I think has the characteristics of a front-end which is then fed by a number of the legacy systems, which is why applications development work must be done on both of them. In terms of the technical architecture, I do not think that is altogether surprising, different or new.

Anne Begg: I have to say that that is a better explanation than anything I have heard from any of the Ministers—although I am not sure I even understand that explanation—but the question of what this digital solution actually entails is concerning; is it a complete rewriting of the IT or is it, as the hon. Gentleman says, about bringing the legacy systems in and developing them? That was not the original impression we were given, however. Is there to be an original design or the use of the original IT—although, as we know, there is a failure to develop that or to adapt it to cover the different circumstances that people have?
	The Committee was also concerned—we expressed this quite forcefully in our report—about the DWP’s lack of co-operation with our formal role in scrutinising UC. I am sure the House would agree that, as our report says, effective Select Committee scrutiny depends on the provision of accurate, timely and detailed information by Government Departments. The DWP has not always provided that to the Committee in the case of UC.
	As well as publishing a highly critical report on UC last September, the National Audit Office was then involved in a long-running dispute with the DWP about how much it should write off for the wasted IT. Because of the accounting concerns, the NAO refused to sign off the DWP accounts for 2012-13 for six months, which delayed their publication from June to December. The Secretary of State was, not unreasonably, unwilling to appear before the Committee to give oral evidence about UC until the accounts were published, so our own scrutiny process was delayed and hampered.
	The DWP has also been very reluctant to provide us with information about UC and the serious problems it has encountered with it. When the NAO reported on those problems in September last year, it came as news to us, because the Government had not told us about their own concerns about UC and the actions they had taken to address them during 2012 and early 2013, even though our Select Committee had held several oral evidence sessions during that time and published a substantial report. On two occasions the Government published details about major changes to the timetable for UC implementation only when forced to do so by the prospect of the Secretary of State having to appear before us to give oral evidence. Information was released at the session itself on one occasion, and two working
	days before on another—even then, very little detail was available. That, of course, gave the Committee no time to assess the implications of these announcements properly before we put our questions. We believe that it is unacceptable for the Government to provide information about major policy changes to Committees only when forced to do so by the imminent prospect of being held to account in a public evidence session.
	The Committee does not, as the Secretary of State has suggested, want to run his Department—far from it—but we do expect to have access to the information we need to scrutinise it effectively. However, the Secretary of State told us in February:
	“I do not have to tell the Committee everything that is happening in the Department until we have reached a conclusion about what is actually happening”.
	That view was reiterated in the formal Government response to our concerns, which said that the DWP
	“does not regard it as necessary to provide a running commentary on the day to day management of the many large and complex programmes currently underway”.
	I will let hon. Members come to their own conclusions about what that implies in terms of respect for accountability, transparency and the formal scrutiny role of departmental Select Committees.
	Our report also highlighted the problems the UC delays are causing for other key organisations, particularly local authorities. Local authorities currently administer housing benefit on the Government’s behalf but were expecting the introduction of UC to mean that new claims for housing benefit would end by April this year. The UC implementation delays mean that local authorities will now be administering housing benefit until at least 2016. It is very difficult for them to know how best to run and staff their housing benefit departments until the Government clarify what funding they will make available for that. We asked the DWP to clarify the funding that will be available in 2014-15 and 2015-16 to cover the additional costs to local authorities, but no details were provided in the Government’s response; they simply said that they would ensure that they were in a position to inform local authorities of their individual budget allocations
	“in sufficient time before the start of the 2015/16 financial year”.
	Local authorities will also have an important role in helping more vulnerable claimants cope with the transition to UC. Our 2012 report on UC examined the implications for vulnerable people in detail. Since then, the fundamental problems with implementing UC have, understandably, dominated public debate and the Committee’s attention. Ensuring that vulnerable people are not excluded from, or disadvantaged by, UC should remain a priority for the Government, and how vulnerable people will be supported through the transition remains a key concern for the Committee. The Government have acknowledged that vulnerable people will need support to adjust to UC. Lord Freud, the Minister with responsibility for welfare reform, told us that how support would be provided for vulnerable people was almost as important as UC itself. But it is still far from clear how that will work in practice, and a great deal still needs to be clarified about how that support will be provided and funded.
	Working with the Local Government Association, the Government produced the first version of the local support services framework—LSSF—last year. That sets out how they expect support for vulnerable people to be provided, in partnership with local authorities, housing providers and the voluntary sector. However, there is little detail on how the LSSF will operate in practice and how it will be funded, even though an “update” was published at the end of last year. The Government said last December that the final version of the LSSF would be published in autumn 2014, but in their response to our report that date had changed to autumn 2015. We understand that the delays to UC implementation mean that the timetable for providing support to claimants will also need to change, but the organisations DWP expects to deliver this support—local authorities, housing providers and voluntary organisations —all need to know what they are expected to provide, so that they can plan and budget for these new responsibilities.
	In all the debate about IT systems, costs and case loads, it concerns me that the central point of UC is being lost: it is meant to make the benefit system work better for millions of claimants, help them to move into jobs or work more hours, and make it less complicated for them to move on to and off benefit as their lives change. Until we have more clarity, transparency and detail from the Government about progress with the UC project, it is difficult for anyone, including my Committee, to make a proper assessment of whether UC will genuinely deliver the improvements for claimants that this costly and complex welfare reform was intended to deliver.

Angela Watkinson: The DWP is delivering the biggest welfare reforms for a generation, improving services for claimants and cutting costs concurrently. The objectives are: to control the costs of welfare; to get as many people as possible into or back to work; to strengthen incentives to work by making it pay; to support people who need welfare; and to be fair to the taxpayer. Benefits have been capped so that no household can receive more on out-of- work benefits than £26,000, which is what the average working family earns. That is still very generous, as many people in full-time employment do not earn as much as £26,000; we are talking about an equivalent of £500 a week for couples and those with children and £300 a week for single people. Housing benefit has also been capped so that benefit claimants face the same lifestyle decisions as other working people have to make—living where they can afford and limiting the size of their family to what they can afford.
	The most radical reform is the introduction of universal credit, a new single benefit integrating income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, housing benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit. At the heart of this hugely ambitious UC programme is the intention to make work always pay. The scale and complexity of administering UC cannot be overestimated, and its introduction will necessarily be incremental. Under UC, 1.1 million households will keep more of their earnings when starting work of 10 hours per week; and 3.1 million households will have a higher entitlement, with 75% of those being the poorest households. Replacing that complex range of
	benefits with one new single benefit offering incentives to work and protection for those who cannot work is a significant challenge, and a policy of incremental expansion is the right way in which to introduce it.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady consider the fact that UC is not going to be a single benefit? Some recipients will be the equivalent of jobseeker’s allowance claimants now, and they will have one set of conditions and so on, and another set of claimants will be people who have been deemed to be unfit to work. Inherently, UC will not be a fully singular benefit.

Angela Watkinson: As my hon. Friend—I will call her that as we are co-members of the Work and Pensions Committee—will know, there are component parts to UC and different claimants will be entitled to different components. As the Chair of the Committee has said, people’s lives are immensely complex and they change, which all adds to the complexity of running any benefits system. Let us consider housing benefit, for example. Family members move in and out of the home, which changes the entitlement, and people have fluctuating health conditions, which make their circumstances change. It will always be a complicated system, but the intention is to simplify it and to minimise the cost of administration.
	The National Audit Office has said that the United Kingdom will benefit by £38 billion as a result of universal credit. This Government have grasped the nettle that the previous Government avoided. After 13 years of Labour, welfare spending increased by 60%, costing every household an extra £3,000. Housing benefit increased by 35%. Between 1997 and 2010, spending on tax credits increased by 340%. Long-term unemployment almost doubled between 2008 and 2010, from 396,000 to 783,000. The number of households where no member had ever worked doubled. The maximum housing benefit award reached an eye-watering £104,000 a year. Labour subsidised people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working people could not afford.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady tell us how many claimants received the sum of money that she just mentioned? How many claims were in that region?

Angela Watkinson: I am not for one moment giving the impression that that was typical of the average claim; of course it was not. The fact that there was no cap meant that it was possible, in certain circumstances, to rise to those really out-of-control levels.
	The reforms to the welfare system will ensure that as many people as possible who are fit for work are helped into work, and only those people who are either unable to work for a whole complex range of reasons or who are on very low incomes are eligible for benefits. The scale of that task is gargantuan, but we have made good progress and we continue to progress towards improving the lives of the long-term unemployed and bringing the welfare budget under control for the benefit of the working people who pay for it through their taxes.

Glenda Jackson: If ever a debate title were a misnomer, it is this one, because it should be “The failure to implement universal
	credit”. Failure is pretty much par for the course for the Department for Work and Pensions, certainly in the implementation of its policies, which aim to reduce costs to the benefit of claimants and taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee has detailed the fantastic amounts of public money that have already been lost in a failed IT system. She has also touched on the unwillingness of Ministers in the DWP to answer questions from the Select Committee. I point out in passing that every Select Committee is appointed by this House of Commons, and its sole purpose is to scrutinise the Department which bears the same name.
	We see constant failure in the implementation of the work capability assessment. On four occasions, Professor Harrington has attempted to ameliorate the agonies which individuals who are subjected to the work capability assessment are put through, yet we are still receiving letters from our constituents detailing the humiliating experiences. This is a really serious matter. An individual claimant can be sanctioned for failing to attend a work capability assessment. We have all had examples from constituents of the letter detailing the appointment arriving two or even three days after the specified date. We have also heard about those who have turned up for the assessment only to be told by the assessors, “Sorry, we can’t take any more people today.”

Debbie Abrahams: As usual, my hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. I have mentioned this story before, but let me repeat it. One of my constituents was sanctioned for having a heart attack during his work capability assessment. The nurse undertaking the assessment told him he was having a heart attack, but he was still sanctioned.

Glenda Jackson: It is not usual for me to be gobsmacked, but I certainly am by that story, even though I have heard from constituents who, while not necessarily experiencing heart attacks, have had absolutely disgraceful treatment. We are also seeing a rise in the number of appeals concerning employment and support allowance, and the appeals that have been lodged are taking longer and longer to come to a conclusion. I will not go into the whole debacle of the personal independence payment, but it is simply scandalous that some of the most vulnerable people in our society, whom the DWP is supposed to be assisting, are being left in many instances with no financial support whatever. To add insult to injury, this Government have also reduced funding of local authorities. Many local authorities were absolutely central to ensuring that people with disabilities could live human, productive lives. That money has now been taken away.
	I hope to bring home to the Chamber the absolute chaos out there at the moment, and to concentrate on the questioning that an individual claimant has to go through and the kind of questioning to which the Secretary of State responds. It is clear that he is burdened with delusions of adequacy, but some of his responses to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee at his most recent appearance in front of us were absolutely disgraceful.
	Let me detail the experience of an individual claimant. A 71-year-old pensioner, dubbed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be self-employed, applied for housing
	benefit. It has now taken 17 weeks and still there is no final cut-off point where she has been assured that she will receive housing benefit. The most recent inquiry that came to her was to detail the cost of a bill of £3.40; the second was to detail the cost of a bill of £7.47. Both of those claims took place in 2012. The mind boggles at that, when the Secretary of State, who has lost millions and millions of pounds on a failed IT system, has categorically refused to give the Select Committee any detail whatever about his newly trumpeted business plan. He has refused to discuss the costs of the plan or whether there will be any direct savings either to the taxpayer or to the overarching benefit system. It is an absolute disgrace that the Select Committee, which has been appointed to scrutinise the DWP, is being buffeted away. It seems that the Department is opting for some kind of bunker mentality, but it will not work.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Was she as surprised as I was to learn in the evidence given by Sir Bob Kerslake to the Public Accounts Committee this afternoon that the business case that she has just mentioned, which, according to the report, is due to be finalised by the end of April, has still not been agreed by Her Majesty’s Treasury?

Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, and I would hope every Member of this House, would be shocked to realise that the DWP is still not giving the right answers—it is ludicrous to expect the right answer to come from the Department of Work and Pension, as simple humility is not part and parcel of its make-up. The Committees and Government Departments that scrutinise where public money goes are being pushed to one side. I have already referred to the bunker mentality of the DWP, and the example that my right hon. Friend gives me is just par for the course; it happens constantly. Arguments are not even being put up. We are all being told, “Oh no, it’s none of your business; it’s our business.” My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee has given details of the actual answers. There is a pattern, which I find very disturbing. I have already touched on the issue of disregarding any serious questioning on costs. Ever since this major benefit change came into being, the Department has employed what I would call a programme of black propaganda, and every single one of the red tops has taken it up with glee and run with it. That black propaganda told the people of this country—I am paraphrasing; the DWP would never be this cogent—that everyone who was claiming benefits was doing so because they were too lazy to work. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already touched on the agonies that are being endured by people with serious mental and physical disabilities, and the pattern is ongoing.
	A report from the Office for National Statistics last week scrutinised the level of complaints made against all the Government Departments about the misuse of statistics, and guess which one came top of the list! It was the Department for Work and Pensions. Throughout the time I have been a member of the Select Committee, we have raised again and again the issue of the misuse of stats and the misuse of the English language to proselytise this black propaganda and to confuse and distort what should be central to the Committee’s
	concerns—namely, the well-being of the people who require benefits, not because they are lazy or workshy, or even because there are no jobs, but because they should be supported by the people of this country, as they always have been.
	After the last debate on this issue, I was touched to receive a response from the people of this country. If there is a silver lining to the black cloud that is the DWP, it is that the majority of people in this country still believe that the welfare state should do what it was meant to do, which is to support people who, through no fault of their own, cannot maintain themselves without the support of the rest of us. That support is alive and well out there in the country. The one place where it is certainly dead is within the Department for Work and Pensions.

Anne-Marie Morris: We are having an interesting debate. I should like to pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, on which I serve—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) does a fantastic job, and she painted a good picture in her opening remarks, in which she set out all the facts. We must recognise, however, that this is a complex area. Governments and Oppositions of all political flavours have, over decades, contributed to the challenge. Many have been well-meaning and tried to resolve all the problems. Simplicity is a great objective, but it is probably one of the hardest things to deliver.
	Listening to the debate so far, I have heard those who see the glass half full and those who see the glass half empty. A couple of the contributions from the Opposition have seen it has half empty, but let me remind the House of what we have in common. Both parties have said that universal credit is the right way to go.
	We also need to be mindful of the fact that the purpose of a Select Committee is not, frustratingly, to look at what is right and what is working. We never look at that. Rightly, we look at the areas that are not working and need improvement. It is absolutely right, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said, that we should ensure that those who are vulnerable get the help they need. Like her, I get constituents coming into my surgery who have not had fair treatment at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions, but that problem has been growing for years and years. It is to the credit of this Government that they have tried, for the first time in 60 years, to consolidate the system and to simplify it and pull it together so that it works better in the future.

Glenda Jackson: The flaw in the hon. Lady’s argument is that the Select Committee has been consistent—there has been complete cross-party unity on this—in presenting to the Department for Work and Pensions the areas where we believe improvements could be made and, in many instances, putting forward ideas about what kind of help is needed. There has also been a consistent response from the Department—namely, total rejection.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Select Committee has put forward a number of arguments, but that is what we are there to do. We are not there to tell the Department about the things it is doing well—more’s the pity, as that would give our
	work some balance—so she is right in that respect. I think that she is describing issues of obfuscation and not getting the facts, but my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was instructive in that regard when, earlier in the debate, he said that communication was the key. The devil is in the detail, and it is very difficult—when talking about, say, technology —to communicate with people and tell them exactly what is being done. I would love to say that technology was simple, but it is not.
	Let us remind ourselves of the objectives of the change, to which both sides of the House agreed. The objectives were simplification, reducing costs and smoothing the transition from benefit to work. The Chair of the Select Committee talked about dealing with the wretched precipices that make people’s lives so difficult. The Committee has worked to hold the Government to account, and we should be trying to get a better result rather than just point scoring for the sake of it. The Chairman has done a good job of trying to get that balance right.
	Let us look at where we are going. When we get this sorted out, 3 million households will be better off by £177 a month. We will have a system that provides better child care support, with an extra £200 million for child care helping 100,000 extra families working fewer than 16 hours a week. We will also have an extra £400 million to increase child care support to 85% of all working families. Let us look to the longer-term future: in 10 years’ time, UK plc will benefit by £35 billion. That will be a worthwhile and significant achievement. The path must continue to be trodden and the Committee must continue to fight the fight to keep the Department for Work and Pensions honest in all that it says, and to strive to get the best possible results. This must be a partnership, however.
	Progress to date has included the launching of pathfinders, and we also have additional schemes such as the long-term schemes in our jobcentres. After the initial launch in the north-west, we now have universal credit rolling out in 14 jobcentres. By the end of this year, it will be in place in 90 of them. That will mean that universal credit will have been rolled out to one in eight jobcentres. That is not an insignificant achievement in that period of time, given the complexity involved. We already have 6,500 people on universal credit. I appreciate the Chairman’s view that that is a small number, but it is a start and a move in the right direction.
	A point that has not been raised is that this is not just about nuts and bolts, IT systems and budgets. It is about a fundamental culture change, and as we know, changing a culture is one of the most difficult things to do in any organisation, never mind in the country as a whole.

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend may recall that during my short time on the Select Committee, we visited the pathfinder in Oldham and Bolton. I was struck by the enthusiasm of the user groups and the staff for the new culture of helping people into work, and by the fact that people in those user groups were able to work for longer hours without falling off the precipice. Given the good news on working and benefits, should the Government not continue to press forward with universal credit?

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend makes a very good point and he is absolutely right: that what indeed what we heard. It points to the suggestion that the Government’s movement is beginning to deliver results.
	The claimant commitment has now been rolled out in every job centre. It is quite a challenge, because we are saying to those who claim that benefits should absolutely be there for anybody who needs them—there are some basic things that we all believe to be the absolute right of any individual, because they are about respect for the individual—but that the taxpayer must also feel that his or her interests have been properly represented. The claimant commitment is a move in the right direction, ensuring that there is no longer any opportunity for an individual to believe that a life on benefits is a lifestyle choice. No taxpayer would believe that that is right, and I do not believe that any Opposition Member believes it is—they would say that this is about helping those who really need it: the vulnerable, the disabled and those in really difficult positions. I think we should all agree that this is an important step forward, and 600,000 claimant commitments have been signed.
	By 2016-17, the vast majority will have moved to universal credit. Although that is perhaps not what we would ideally have wanted, it seems to me that it is not bad progress. However, I and my fellow members of the Select Committee have obviously been privy to a number of the issues that have already been alluded to as a big challenge, and one of them is undoubtedly the IT systems. I share the concerns, frustration and lack of understanding about how the pilot worked, about what the end state solution will be, and about the fact that £40 million has effectively been wiped off and £91 million amortised.
	I think the real issue is that as a Committee we needed context. Having worked in the private sector, I know that when very large IT systems are introduced, there will always be a write-off. When we sit in the public sector looking at a new IT system without the context of what it takes to roll out such systems and what the normal practice is for write-offs, we find it hard to judge. It would have been fair to want and to effect more explanation from the DWP. Indeed, would it not have been wonderful to have more input from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South who, I think, might have been able to give us the necessary language and understanding? He has explained why the two systems have to carry on in parallel whereas we, perhaps because we do not know very much about IT, naively thought that that was a waste of money and that we could just move straight to end state. I hope that the Minister will give us a little more clarity about that.
	The Chair of the Committee also mentioned one of the challenges with housing benefit. Although universal credit has been rolled out and although it is right to have done that in slow steps, checking them as we went, it still does not include housing benefit, ESA or tax credits. I share the general concern about how exactly the Department will incorporate some of those more difficult pieces into the system. At the moment, as the Chair of the Committee said, the cases we have been considering have been the easy ones, but we have now moved on from single people to couples. It is a matter of communication and understanding how things will be done effectively. With housing benefit in particular, it is important that advice and guidance are produced for local authorities and that the local support services
	framework is produced in its final form earlier rather than later. Financial information, early information and the final LSSF are undoubtedly needed sooner rather than later, and I share the concerns about the current timeline.
	Although some are frustrated with the slow development of the system, it seems to me that going slow and steady to ensure that we treat vulnerable people with the care they need must be right. We must get this right for the vulnerable and nothing would be worse than rolling the scheme out early and getting it wrong. That would be a serious mistake.
	Despite some of the challenges, there has been a significant achievement. When we get this done—and I hope that there will be cross-party support for it—it will be the biggest transformation in the system for 60 years. It will also make it clear that there is a proper balance between society and the taxpayer and those who need proper support to enable them to participate fully in working life. The fact that the claimant commitment has been so successful in beginning to change that mindset must be a good thing.
	I would question the fact that although the Opposition support universal credit as a concept, they are now suggesting that if they were in government after the next election they would freeze it, but not the pilot, I understand. It seems to me that we do more damage if we start stopping and starting programmes. If the Opposition support universal credit, as I believe they do, they should support what is being done. Of course we should hold the Department to account, but let us also consider sensible steps forward. I cannot see that freezing something is a sensible step, because all it does is stop the progress that we all agree would be a good thing in the longer term.
	One can strive for the perfect, but one can never achieve the perfect. We have made good steps as a Government but there is more that can be done. Most important, the lesson I would like the Department to take away is about better and timely communication, particularly on complex issues such as IT, a subject on which I do not claim to be an expert and on which I suspect that not many members of the Select Committee would claim to be experts either.

Debbie Abrahams: Although I have huge regard for the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), I must disagree with some parts of her speech, most notably because there has been a swathe of errors not just in universal credit but, as we debated last week, in the other programmes for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) remarked on the unfortunate way in which the welfare reforms have been framed and debated in the media, including irresponsible press releases that perpetuate the vilification of people on benefits and paint them as the new undeserving poor. I have found that deeply offensive and such an approach has been used in Ministers’ speeches. Many people have found that offensive.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Lady is a fine contributor to our Select Committee and adds a lot of intellectual rigour and brings a lot from her previous background.
	My challenge is: would it not be lovely if we could control the media? She is absolutely right, I am sure, that some inappropriate things have been said by the wrong people, but when it comes to who said what and whether what is reported in the press is true I find it a very hard leap of faith to make to accept her other point. I do not believe that any member of the Government would wantonly wish to put out any message in the way that she describes—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady has already had 14 minutes. Let somebody else in—we need short interventions.

Debbie Abrahams: Language such as that about “shirkers” and “scroungers” has been used in the House by Ministers, and I reiterate that I find this deeply offensive.
	If we consider welfare reforms in the round, we can see that there have been huge errors in how they have been delivered. If we consider them in the context of other reforms to the welfare state, we can see that we are experiencing a decimation of the welfare system that was set up after the second world war with people who are sick and disabled through no fault of their own increasingly being denied access to a basic standard of living. In addition, the changes to access to health care and to justice are also affecting benefit claimants and because of the changes there has been a 20% reduction in the number of benefit claimants whose appeals are successful. We need to look at the situation in the round. I find it disappointing that a debate such as this is not seen in the context of everything else that is going on.
	On the implementation of universal credit, I do not understand how the Secretary of State can still be in a job. Mistakes and errors have cost hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. That has been accompanied by cover-up and claims that the system has been reset.
	I endorse all the positive comments that have been made about the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). She is a fantastic Chair, always allowing people to engage and giving them the opportunity to speak, but she has been shown such disrespect. If anybody has not seen how the Secretary of State behaved in that Select Committee meeting in February, I invite them to watch it. It was a disgrace.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I hope she will also allow that the Secretary of State was sorely provoked. If we are going to look at the behaviour of one person, we need to look at the behaviour of others who took part in that exchange.

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, I do not agree with that. The exchange is on record and people can watch it. It was clear that when the Chair of the Select Committee asked in February why we had not had the information that was available, the democratic role that Select Committees play in our parliamentary system was ignored. The response to the Select Committee’s report is a further justification for my comments. I am not alone in my views. There has been criticism from the Major Projects Authority and the National Audit Office.

Jim Cunningham: The previous Conservative Government had form in this area, particularly in relation to benefits, although my hon. Friend probably was not in the House at the time. We heard a lot of ballyhoo about the horizon project, but at the end of the day it cost billions to put right. Again, it was the people on benefits who suffered as a result. The Conservatives have form. They come up with all sorts of excuses over the years, and claim to be compassionate. They are not. We have only to look at people with disabilities, who still have to go through medical tests.

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No, I was not in the House at that time. We recognise that we did not get everything right either—I am sure there will be an intervention about that—but this Government and this Secretary of State are now in power. It is their programme that we are scrutinising and it is a categorical failure. It is a mess. I have spoken about the waste of money. The Major Projects Authority said that there have been so many changes to universal credit that it cannot be seen as the same project: it must be seen as a new project.
	As I said last week, and as was mentioned also by the Chair of the Select Committee, we started off with four pathfinders, including one in my constituency, Oldham. Those were announced in 2011 and were meant to be followed by a national roll-out in October 2013. On the day that the Secretary of State was supposed to provide evidence to the Select Committee, we learned that there was not to be a roll-out. Again, he was very indignant that we were questioning him about that. It was appalling arrogance.
	As we have heard, there are supposed to be 7.7 million people on universal credit when it is fully implemented. Currently about 6,000 people are on it. The Secretary of State thought it was highly amusing when I asked him last week how long it would take at the present rate for 1 million people to be on UC. It is a matter of simple maths. Perhaps he, like the Chancellor, has problems with that. The answer is 2091. The Secretary of State did not like answering that.
	Last September the National Audit Office reported IT problems that the Government had known about for 18 months but had failed to tell us about. That is deceptive and dishonourable. Some £40 million spent on software has had to be written off and a further £91 million written down. Good money is being poured after bad as the Government continue to spend £37 million to £38 million on the old IT system, while at the same time spending extensive sums on an end-state solution or, as it is now called, enhanced digital—whatever.
	In addition to saying that it was now treating universal credit as a new project, the MPA, together with the NAO, reported its concerns on significant issues of governance, transparency, financial controls over supplier spending, and ineffective departmental oversight. It could not get worse. How is the Secretary of State still in his job? In any other profession, he would have gone. Why is he still there?
	We supported and still support the principles of a simplified benefits system and one that makes work pay, but whether that will happen is questionable. There is real concern that the aim of making work pay will not be achieved. Recent evidence has shown that by 2018
	cuts to the basic and work allowances will mean that universal credit is £685 a year less generous for a lone parent with two children, saving the Government £1.7 billion a year. There are also concerns that UC will weaken the incentive for second earners in couples to work. One in five children in poverty now lives with a single-earner couple. Ensuring that more second earners, principally women, are able to take up employment will be critical to reducing child poverty rates. Finally, the decision to leave council tax support out of universal credit means that the aim of simplicity is being undermined, with many claimants facing two rates of benefit withdrawal when they move into work or when their income increases.
	The introduction of universal credit has been a car crash—a demonstration of how not to implement policy and of how the policy intention of making work pay is failing. This Government and this Secretary of State are failing to reform our welfare system. Of course, we need to make sure that welfare spending is not profligate, but in reforming our welfare system so that it is fit for the 21st century, we must remember why we developed our model of social welfare, retaining its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us should we fall on hard times or become sick or disabled. It is a hand-up, not a hand-out.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in what seems to have become a very large meeting of the Select Committee. We will see whether that changes by the end of the debate. It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber talking about universal credit again. I forget how many times in the past year we have done so in the course of ministerial statements, urgent questions or other debates on the same topic. We may have spent more hours debating it than people have spent claiming it, but I hope that will not continue to be the case.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) spoke, she confirmed that there is still general support for the principle of universal credit. I took issue with the Chair of the Select Committee in a debate last week when she rightly set out how hard welfare reform is, but we have to bite the bullet. We cannot keep tweaking and expanding over-complex systems. At some stage we need to start again with a new system that meets modern needs. We must accept that the existing architecture will not last much longer without falling over in an awful heap. We need to find a new welfare system that works for the people who claim from it, works for the taxpayer and achieves the outcomes that we want.
	I hope the Government will press on with universal credit. I hope they can find a smoother path than there has been so far, but the direction of travel is right. I hope we can reach the end position more quickly than we fear. It is worth reiterating what we are trying to replace. The NAO report set out that we are trying to replace six different benefit systems that have about 13 million annual claims and pay out about £67 billion a year. Those are huge amounts of money and huge complexity that we are trying to sort out.
	For the investment of £2.4 billion—perhaps the Minister could clarify whether we are expecting a higher cost for universal credit than the original estimate—we are expecting
	£38 billion worth of savings by 2023. The Government response quoted a £35 billion benefit; I assume that that is the net of those two numbers, and not that the estimated saving has drifted down a bit. Again, it would be helpful to understand what savings we think there will be over the period. I think there is to be an annual saving of £7 billion, so there is a huge prize for making the system work. It should be better for claimants, who will understand what they will get, and better for the people administering UC, who will understand what they should be giving out. I think that we have all been in that awful situation of hearing someone ask, “Am I better off in work or on benefits?” That is not a simple calculation. It is hugely complex to work out the answer, but we need to be able to answer that clearly.
	I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said when we went to see UC at work in the north-west. What sticks in my memory is the genuine enthusiasm on the part of everyone who was working with UC for the system, the ideas and the changes. However, I also remember the horribly clunky and complex IT systems that we saw, which did not seem able to talk to each other, and which required a lot of manual interventions to make the processes work. I am looking forward to going to Hammersmith in October to see the latest iteration of how UC works, and to see whether we have managed to get a much slicker and smoother system. I certainly hope that we have.
	There have been two benefits from this change. We hear that the claimant commitment, which has been rolled out in my constituency, is bringing about real changes in behaviour. The contract part of that helps to make it clear to people what they are expected to do; that is working. The other area where we have seen real advantages is in the use of real-time information. Many of us perhaps wrongly and cynically feared that that would be the bit of the process that would fall over; we feared that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would struggle to make it work, and that trying to add it to its complex systems might be a bit too much. That has actually worked fine; the data seem to work, and there are even more enhancements that we can make to the use of that in the meantime, before we get to see the whole UC in action. So there have been some positive steps so far.
	Only about 7,000 people are claiming UC. We have to be honest: that is a long way short of where the Government, the Committee, and indeed everyone, were hoping the UC would be. We have to accept that that is disappointing, but it is far better than rushing on with the system only to have it completely fall over, and creating a tax credits-type fiasco of the kind that we all remember from a decade or so ago. I do not remember the person who headed the Department responsible for tax credits, or the responsible Minister, having to resign. I do not remember the then Chancellor holding his hands up and saying, “I think I’ll resign in embarrassment at this farce.” It is a bit rich to call for the Secretary of State to resign when these implementation mistakes were not his fault; as I understand it, he spotted what was going wrong and sorted it out. There is no call for him to resign at all; that was a cheap and unnecessary shot.
	I agree with the concerns expressed about the engagement with the Select Committee; that was a bit of a disappointment to us. Clearly, there had been a long period in which it was known that there were issues with UC. A lot of money had been wasted, and there had been lots of changes to the programme; the Committee was just not aware of that. I accept that the National Audit Office was involved, and that the Public Accounts Committee had various runs around this, but it would have felt a lot better for us, when we were trying to scrutinise the Department’s performance and finances, and the programme as a whole from a policy perspective, if we had had some kind of understanding that there were pretty major issues that will make the project look a lot different from how it was meant to look. That would have been a slightly more respectful way to treat the Committee. I do not expect daily updates on everything that is happening, but we are talking about something fundamental. That could have been handled a little better. Perhaps we would then have had a slightly less tense meeting with the Secretary of State earlier this year. I personally do not recall finding him offensive or unhelpful; the meeting was a little bad-tempered, but I suppose that when one is scrutinising someone, it can be a little difficult. I suspect that there was fault on all sides in that very long meeting.
	I will come back to the Committee’s recommendation on how many IT systems we should be working on. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) may have clarified something, but I am not sure that we can say that the new digital end-state solution is an enhancement of the current one. I think that we have always understood that a twin-track approach was being taken; we were working on two different systems at the same time, one of which would succeed the other. There are reports that the Cabinet Office recommended moving to the end-state solution earlier this year, rather than staying with the twin-track approach.
	There is a fundamental question here: if we are working on two different systems, one of which will succeed the other, and there are only 7,000 or so people claiming on the first one, is it better to focus all resources on the final end-state system, and divert people, money and time to that, rather than trying to work on both at the same time, even if that means a slightly longer implementation period, and a slight further delay? Perhaps testing just one system may get us to the right position; I do not know. It may be that to make this work, we have to go through the first system before we can move on to the second. The answers that we have had on that are not clear. It looks to quite a lot of people as though there may be a more cost-effective way of achieving this, given the timetable that we are on.
	I reiterate my view that this is a great reform; everyone should want to see it work. I ask the Government to press on and make it work.

Sheila Gilmore: Some social security commentators have described a universal credit-type proposal as the holy grail of social security thinking. It is certainly true that the idea is nothing new. It was not invented by the current Government; it has been debated and investigated by previous Governments. In an earlier debate on the subject—I think it was an urgent question —my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh
	South West (Mr Darling) made it quite clear that when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, he looked at the project and concluded that without very significant time and money being invested, it would be too difficult to deliver.
	There has obviously been a learning curve to which, for whatever reason, the current Government seem to have decided to pay no attention. If we sometimes seem quite cynical and sceptical about the whole process, it is because of a lot of what we have heard over the past four years. There was total confidence that UC would be the answer to all sorts of questions, and would be relatively easy. I do not think that many people present, except my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), were on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee in 2011. The then Minister of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who responded to most of the debates in Committee, was prone to describing his proposals as an empty bookcase. The Bill was the architecture; a lot of other things would come along later. I think he spoke more truly than he thought he did, because clearly it was a rather empty bookcase; a lot of the issues had not been fully bottomed-out and talked about in the way that they should have been.
	One example of that—I will come on to others—is free school meals. We discussed the issue in the Bill Committee in 2011. Various people made written submissions and proposals, and there were discussions, about how that might or might not work as part of the project. We learn now that the Department still does not know how it will deal with free school meals in the further roll-out of universal credit. Three years later, we have not made much progress on something quite important and basic.

Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that anyone building a bookcase has to know the size of the books that will be displayed on it before they can get the architecture right? Perhaps that was a lesson that the Minister forgot.

Sheila Gilmore: That is a very good analogy for how we have arrived in this position. The trouble is that it is not some sort of blunder: my hon. Friends have referred to some of the other big changes going through the DWP, and the same pattern has been seen with disability living allowance and the personal independence payment. First, a straw man was erected: there was a statement about certain things in the previous system, some of which were not entirely accurate, being really bad and having to be changed. There was then a brief initial consultation period before the Department went ahead with the change, which was not properly piloted. As a result, every new PIP applicant since June 2013 is part of the testing process. That is not a pilot, unless it is a pilot on a gigantic scale. Many people who are anxious and worried while they wait for their PIP payments to come through, are being treated as guinea pigs, after a failure to analyse the problem, implement the scheme or test the proposals. The pattern is not unique to universal credit.
	Had we been told from the outset that there would be a slow roll-out because of the need for testing, we might not be standing here now debating whether the glass is half full, but we have been told so often that the glass is full and everything is going well. When the Select
	Committee prepared a report in November 2012, we concentrated on vulnerable claimants. At that time we were told that all the implementation plans were on track for 2013, which was not the case. By February 2013, the Major Projects Authority told the DWP to reset the entire project—that was an internal, private report of which Members had no knowledge at the time. That information did not come out clearly until July 2013, when the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that there were major changes to the roll-out. The NAO reported in September 2013, and the Secretary of State’s response was, “Oh, I knew about all those problems all along.” Perhaps he did know about the problems all along, but he did not tell many people about them. There were further changes in December 2013.
	Some speakers, in trying to support universal credit, suggested that at least we have some people on it. There are 6,000 people on universal credit, and it will be rolled out to more jobcentres, but those are the very simplest cases. In essence, for those claimants universal credit is little different from jobseeker’s allowance. There is little to say that universal credit is a big breakthrough to a different form of benefit, because until now claimants have been single people. Apparently, we are now able to roll out universal credit to some couples, but the claimants so far have been single people. Some 70% of claimants are relatively young. They are new benefit claimants who do not have complications, basically. If universal credit is to bring together various benefits successfully, the difficult cases will be the real test, not the straightforward ones.
	One bit of universal credit thinking that has been rolled out is the claimant commitment, which has been rolled out to JSA claimants, not merely those who are technically in receipt of JSA-style universal credit. The Government have rolled out the stick without rolling out the carrot. One of the problems with the claimant commitment is not necessarily getting people to agree what they will do to find work but that minor breaches of that agreement can lead to loss of benefits. The carrot—the bit that is meant to help people not only to find work but to make work pay—has not yet been introduced because the vast majority of people are nowhere near being on universal credit.
	Since our original debates on the Welfare Reform Act 2012, we have experienced obfuscation through the use of computerese. MPs, like many lay people, are not IT experts. Initially, concerns were raised about the size of the IT project—various Governments have run into trouble with IT in the past—and people asked, “How do we know this will be different?” Any concerns were simply brushed aside because the Government had a new “agile” way of doing things that meant everything was going to be fine. About 18 months later we learned that that way of doing things had been abandoned, so clearly everything was not fine, but that is what we were told.
	Other things that were “fine” included security, establishing people’s identity and the difficulties with online transactions. Those concerns were raised from the outset. I recall an informal briefing at which the Minister, Lord Freud, was asked questions by people who were expert, such as people who had served on housing associations. They asked, “What about the verification of people’s housing claims? How is that actually going to be done?” At the moment, those claims are done fairly intensively with people having to
	produce information, although housing associations have been allowed to verify that information because they have seen the lease, and so on. Lord Freud simply ignored all that and said, “No, universal credit will have far less fraud and error, and it will all be fine.” But of course it has not been fine, and it is now recognised that the notion that everything could be done online has not only been delayed but will never happen. One reason why that will not happen is that security has been recognised as a major issue. The same Ministers who told us that security was not a problem have now told us that it is a problem. When a Department is paying out substantial sums of money to millions of individuals, doing it fully online is not practical. After Ministers initially enthused about how everything would be straightforward, and after having been told different things at different times—even when the reality was that something else was going on—we are somewhat sceptical.
	As other speakers have said, we were told that a certain type of IT is being used for the very small number of current claimants but that, at the same time, the Department was working on what in February 2014 was called the end-state, open-source, web-based solution. [Laughter.] Exactly. I know the meaning of each individual word, but I have never been clear about what the phrase means. We were told that it was a digital solution—it therefore seems to be an important aspect of the whole programme—and that it would be ready to be tested on 100 claimants by November 2014. As the Select Committee report found, the system is still a long way from being viable. There is a huge difference between operating something like that for a small group of 100 claimants and operating it for far more people.
	The Select Committee thought that what we were being told about was a different and digital way of doing things, and we specifically asked for more detail. The Government’s response to the Select Committee report evaded the question, and it is all there. First, the response talked about the claimant commitment, which I have already mentioned and did not have anything to do with the digital solution. Secondly, the response talked about a
	“more challenging and supportive relationship between claimants and coaches.”
	“Coaches” is the new name for jobcentre advisers. Again, that does not really tell us anything about the digital solution. There are concerns about how scalable those intensive relationships will be. Thirdly, we were told that there will be more online services, but many JSA claims are already made online, so again it is unclear whether that has anything to do with the end-state or digital solution.
	Therefore, having gone around the houses about the claimant commitment, the things that are already happening online and the more supportive relationship, all that we have been told is that the digital solution is
	“a multi-channel service that makes greater use of modern technology”—
	I am glad that it makes use of modern technology, rather than ancient technology—
	“to ensure the system is as effective, simple and transparent as possible.”
	Those are all worthy aims, but they tell us nothing about what the end-state solution actually is, what it does, how much progress has been made towards it, how many people are working on it, what it will cost or what the interface will be between claimants and the system. It is nothing more than an aspiration.

Stephen Pound: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making some extremely pertinent points, but many of my constituents who are in work receive varying pay packets. For example, one week they will work overtime but the next week they will not. Some of them, such as school meal supervisory assistants, are employed only in term time. Does she have any confidence at all from what we have heard so far that the system could be sufficiently sophisticated and robust to take into account natural human activity, which does not consist of people earning exactly the same wage for 52 weeks of the year and with exactly the same family circumstances?

Sheila Gilmore: Again, there is the theory and then there is what happens in practice. If in all cases the information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs works, it should be reasonably accurate, but when people have very variable earnings there will be considerable problems, particularly with monthly payments, because it will take a long time to adjust for somebody whose earnings vary a great deal. That will leave some people in considerable hardship.

David Mowat: To answer the intervention made by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), the whole purpose of having the real-time information interface out of the HMRC systems, which was a prerequisite to universal credit, was to address precisely that point.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but obviously there are other complications for people with very variable earnings, and I am not confident that they will all be overcome.
	Finally, on the IT that we are expected to believe will be in place at some point, last week the Secretary of State delivered absolutely no clarity when we debated this in the Chamber. When I intervened to ask him what the end-state solution was, he replied:
	“It is universal credit completely delivering to everybody in the UK. That is the end-state solution—live, online and fully protected.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 645.]
	Again, that is describing the end aspiration in a very generalised way, but it tells us absolutely nothing about whether it will work.
	Any change of this sort requires a lot of thought and practice. One of the issues about which there remains considerable concern—we have not heard a great deal about this from DWP—is the direct payment of housing benefit to the claimant and then to the landlord. To be fair, DWP has been carrying out pilots for two years to see how that would work, and I think that they have now come to an end. I understand that an independent evaluation is now with the Department, although it has not yet been published—perhaps the Minister knows more about that than I do. However, the data from the organisations that have been piloting it are now in the public domain. They looked initially at some 6,700 people
	—in different small groups across the country—that it was tested on. At the end of the pilot, 4,700 were still on direct payments, but 1,993 of the original group had been returned to having payments made directly to their landlord. That is a considerable proportion of the total. That rings some alarm bells on how well it will work. The landlords involved in those pilots have said constantly that it worked only as a result of very intensive work that has been done precisely because they are pilots. There is considerable concern that that will not be scalable to the required extent. Although I certainly commend the Department for running those pilots, we need to hear what lessons have been learnt, whether any further changes to the plans are required and how these things will be made to work in the longer term.
	There are many other aspects of universal credit that people have raised concerns about. In many ways we have almost forgotten about some of the downsides, such as second earners being less incentivised to work under universal credit rules, as drawn up by the Government—they could be changed—than they are under the current system, and there is the fact that some families with disabled children will receive less than they do at the moment. There was a lot of debate about those issues, and the fact that we are nowhere near including some of those people is probably why those concerns have gone off the boil, but we should not forget about them. Even if universal credit is properly implemented, it is not a case of all winners and no losers, because a significant number of people will still be worse off under universal credit.
	The detailed rules for universal credit can be changed, and in some ways that is where the bookcase has its merits. Some of the concerns about the rate of tapering of income, which has been changed since the original proposals, and how we deal with school meals, child care and families with disabled children could all be addressed. I think that it is a pity that at this stage we are so far away from those people being included in the new system that we do not even need to look for the answers. Just over 6,000 people are on universal credit, and that is predominantly JSA with a few changes, so the simplest of cases and situations. That is not really a fantastic achievement. I am sorry if that is describing the glass as being half empty, but that is certainly how it appears to me.

David Mowat: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). This is the second time in a week that we have had the opportunity to debate universal credit. I will focus my brief remarks on some of the comments made by Labour Members, which I think can be characterised thus: “We are doing our job. If only the Secretary of State would do his job, everything would be okay.”
	I had thought that it was agreed that universal credit is a much-needed project. It is a project of national significance. I think that it is analogous to the Olympics, but in fact harder to deliver. Opposition Front Benchers might give that some thought when considering how to conduct themselves in this debate. The project might be harder to deliver than the Olympics, but it is as important to our country. I will comment on the progress and some of the issues around that, and also talk at some length about Labour’s four-point plan—it has now been
	published—to “save” the programme, and a rattling good yarn it is too. I will not repeat the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), but the project is a national imperative. We are trying to make work pay, to streamline benefits and to mimic the whole process of transition to work.
	Developing a set of IT applications to be used by 8 million users is quite difficult. Frankly, neither political party has shown a great deal of success in doing that over the past decade or so. If we accept that it is a hard thing to do, then perhaps Members might try to do a little more than they have today in getting behind the 1,000 or 2,000 people who are working on the programme —working weekends and doing the stuff that needs to be done to get this to happen.
	Are there problems with this project? I do not know; I am not an expert on it. I hate to say this, but I do not even serve on the Select Committee. Perhaps I am here as an imposter. I have had some experience of IT. I have spent a large part of my life explaining to people why IT projects are late and why it is not my fault but somebody else’s—I got quite good at that by the end. During a quality assurance test on an IT project—in fact, we do not have IT projects any more; this is a business change project—one of the indicators of difficulties relates to the number of project managers. If the project manager has changed a lot, there will be reasons for that: it is a very clear flashing red light. This programme has been unlucky—I use that word advisedly—in that it has had a number of different project managers who have had to move on for different reasons. Of course, that creates issues about how things are done, as in this case.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said about roll-out. It was not clear that she thought that the Secretary of State was rolling it out wrongly; rather, she seemed concerned that he had not told her in advance, at the start, how he was going to do it. That is an entirely different matter, because sometimes things are changed for tactical reasons. When the Olympics are being delivered, things are sometimes done in a different order. That is not unreasonable and not necessarily wrong.

Sheila Gilmore: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misinterpret what I said. There is nothing wrong with changing one’s mind and trying to adjust as one goes along, but what has been wrong has been the complete confidence, with each turnaround, in everything being fine and in how we should not be worried any more. We have seen that on several occasions.

David Mowat: As I said, I have not been serving on the Select Committee and I have not heard about the confidence she mentions. My point is that decisions are made during the life cycle of a programme that effect changes, and if, every time that happens—

Debbie Abrahams: There was a two-week difference between the Department saying that everything was fine in a memo that we received and the NAO’s publication of its cataclysmic report condemning what the Department is doing. Is that the sort of time scale that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

David Mowat: I do not know, because I was not aware of that. The hon. Lady’s intervention, like much of her speech, is along the lines of, “We’re doing our
	job; if only the Secretary of State would do his job and hurry up and get this delivered, everything would be all right.” My substantive point is that delivering this application is harder than the delivering the Olympics, and it behoves all of us to get behind the 1,000 or 2,000 people who are trying to do it. That is not to say that individual mistakes have not been made. There have almost certainly been lots of mistakes; it would be odd if there had not been.
	As to progress, the issue is not that things have not been done; it is what we do now and how we deal with it. I am going to be kind to the Opposition and talk about the Olympics rather than the national health service project that wrote off about £10 billion. The Olympics was a joint success—a success for our country—and yet its budget increased by a factor of four. When the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) came to the House and announced that the budget was going up by a factor of four, Members on both sides of the House, broadly speaking, tried to understand why that had happened, accepted it, and knuckled down to get the project delivered. In the end, there was not a cigarette paper between the two parties in terms of the approach to that project of national significance—as this one is. The Secretary of State and his team are trying to do a very difficult thing in delivering this application, to be used by 10 million people, in parallel with existing systems which, every week, continue to be used by 10 million people. Of course mistakes have been made; as I say, it would be odd if they had not. The issue is whether, on the whole, it is being managed correctly and whether, structurally, we are doing the right thing.
	I had thought that Labour supported the basic tenets of universal credit, but some of the comments by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about scope implied that she has severe reservations. She may be right; I am not an expert. It seems odd that Labour Members are raising issues such as scope at such a late stage of the programme. To some extent, they are the Opposition and perhaps it is reasonable that they oppose, but there is a difference between opposing and what I would call opportunistic carping—not only that, but opportunistic carping that is destructive, not constructive.
	That brings me to Labour’s four-point plan, to which Mr Baldrick would have been delighted to give his name. Point 1 is to stop the programme and think about it for three months—not to review it, not to stop rolling it out, but to stop it completely. It is not totally clear to me what they would be stopping—development, implementation, the front end, the legacy systems and interface work, or perhaps all of it. It is not totally clear to me what they would do with the 1,000 people—to take a round number—who are currently doing all these tasks. They are saying, “No, let’s just stop it, with an immediate write-off of all that.”
	Point 2 is to get the NAO to have a look at the programme. That is fair enough; one cannot argue with asking the NAO to look at something. Of course, it would have to use people with expertise in programmes of this type, of whom most of the good ones are in the civil service and working on this programme. Nevertheless, let us do it anyway.
	The really interesting thing about the plan is points 3 and 4, which represent major, significant scope changes. If we make such changes to a programme right near the end, that is when everything goes wrong—when things have to be retested, budgets change, and all the rest of it. The great thing about these major scope changes is that, according to the four-point plan, they will be done at “no additional cost”. The two points propose to remove some of the onus on self-employed people and to continue to pay the primary carer.
	On the train this morning, between Watford and Euston, I costed Labour’s four-point plan at £89,611,207.31. That costing—I am very happy to take an intervention on it—includes 11 new applications, 47 new screens, 190 database changes, 201 reports, a 40% test rerun, and 88 new interfaces. I may have spent only 11 minutes on the calculation to come up with that number, but that is 11 minutes more than Labour Members have spent on putting it into their plan and saying they can achieve it with “no additional cost”. I would be delighted if one of them wants to intervene on me—but intervention came there none.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

David Mowat: Ah!

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman should be clearer about why he thinks, for example, that making payment to the primary carer would have such huge costs, especially at a point when, it is fair to say, the systems are unlikely to have reached implementation for families with children.

David Mowat: The problem arises precisely because the systems are nearing completion. Costs in the life cycle of an IT project escalate the nearer to the end we get. To repeat a couple of the estimating parameters I used, Labour’s plan would require 11 new applications and 47 new screens. If the Labour party has its own estimate and it took it more than 11 minutes to put it together, I would be very happy to accept that it is right, but all it has done is write a sentence.

Anne Begg: From the Select Committee’s point of view—not that of Labour Back Benchers—the problem is that we do not know any of those things. The hon. Gentleman has made assumptions, but we do not know whether the IT has developed sufficiently to take account of families with children or whether it would cost anything to make the payment to the primary carer instead. We do not know—that is our objection. We have not been told. We have not been kept in the loop.

David Mowat: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable intervention and I understand it, but if Labour Front Benchers, whose four-point plan this is, do not know the cost of their proposed scope increases—which is reasonable, because I do not know how much they would cost, either—we would expect them to say, “We don’t know the costs,” not, “These scope increases will be delivered within the same budget as the rest of the programme.” The point I am making is that that is irresponsible. It is not indicative of Front Benchers who take what has to happen to the programme seriously or who, 10 months from now, intend to be the Government of this country. The reality is that 10 years—two Parliaments—is too soon.

Stephen Timms: The Work and Pensions Committee has done the House a service with its report, and the tributes to its Chair from both sides of the House are well deserved.
	The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is absolutely right to say that there is widespread agreement that universal credit is, in principle, a good idea, but I am afraid the universal credit project has had all the hallmarks of disaster right from the start, as a number of us pointed out at the time. Everybody hoped, as we were assured, that the lessons of previous failures had been learned, but unfortunately they had not.
	It started to go wrong within just a few weeks of the general election. Ministers published a Green Paper entitled “21st Century Welfare”—I have my well-thumbed copy with me—which introduced the idea of universal credit. Paragraph 7 of chapter 5 stated:
	“The IT changes that would be necessary to deliver a more integrated system would not constitute a major IT project”.
	There was an utter failure, right at the outset, to grasp the scale of what the Government were about to embark on. How on earth the phrase “would not constitute a major IT project” came to be written in a Green Paper, I have absolutely no idea, but I am quite sure that no official in the Department would have been responsible for writing such a ludicrous claim. I am afraid that from that moment on, things have got progressively worse.
	Will the Minister comment specifically on my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) about this afternoon’s announcement by the head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, that the Treasury has not yet approved the revised business case? A week ago today, the Minister said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
	“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement (5 December 2013, Official Report, column 65WS)”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]
	The Minister said that the Treasury had agreed the business case, but today the head of the civil service told the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasury has not agreed the business case. The Minister owes us an explanation of the discrepancy between her answer a week ago and what the head of the civil service has said today.
	The project has suffered from three levels of failure: policy failure, delivery failure and governance failure. I will say a little about each of them. First, policy failure is perhaps the most serious one. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) has rightly pointed out, the point of universal credit was to make sure that people would be better off if their income increased because they got a job or did extra hours or for some other reason. However, the difficulty involved in achieving that apparently simple goal was never understood by Ministers, and the hard graft of delivering it has therefore never been done.
	Last September’s National Audit Office report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has rightly described as cataclysmic, noted:
	“Throughout the programme the Department has lacked a detailed view of how Universal Credit is meant to work.”
	That has been the central failure: the Department simply has not worked out what the system is supposed to do.
	More than three years after the implementation of universal credit started, we still do not know, as we have been reminded in this debate, which recipients of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals for their children. That is not a minor detail; it is a very serious problem for the aim of making sure that people are always better off if their income goes up. If the truth is that a household will suddenly lose their entitlement to free school meals if they reach a specific income threshold—that appears to be where we are heading—of, for example, £9,000 a year, their income will be a great deal less than it was before the small increase that triggered that change. The Citizens Advice briefing for today’s debate has an example of a lone parent who, if free school meals are decided on the basis of income threshold,
	“will be worse off by taking on extra work however many hours she works”.
	Solving that genuine policy difficulty is at the heart of what the Government are trying to do with universal credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has reminded us, she and I served on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. On 24 March 2011, the Secretary of State said:
	“we have to resolve some of these issues like free school meals…You asked when. I believe that during the Committee stage we should be in a much stronger position to make it much clearer how we will do that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 154-55, Q299.]
	The Committee stage ended on 24 May 2011, just over three years ago. When I asked the Schools Minister about the subject last Thursday, he said that an announcement would be made “shortly”. It appears that we are heading for some sort of income threshold. If that happens, it will create a huge new work disincentive in universal credit for a very large number of people that will be far worse than anything in the current system, for all its flaws.
	The universal credit rescue committee—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for drawing attention to its work—submitted its report to the Labour party two weeks ago. It pointed out that the work incentives for second earners in a couple are a good deal worse in universal credit than they are in the current system. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth underlined the importance of that point.
	Leaving council tax support out of universal credit undermines simplicity, with many claimants facing two separate rates of benefit withdrawal when they move into work or their incomes increase.
	The decision to pay universal credit to only one member of a couple, rather than reflecting the current system in which payment with respect for children is paid to the main carer—an arrangement with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are particularly familiar—raises significant risks for many women and their children.
	Universal credit also creates an extraordinary new red tape burden for self-employed people and partners in small partnerships who want to claim universal credit. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales says that about 60,000 partners in small partnerships will want to claim universal credit and that it will be virtually impossible for them to meet the proposed red tape challenge.
	It is the policy failures that are the most serious, but it is the delivery failures that are the most spectacular. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in a television interview, implementation has been “lamentable”. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 16 November 2010 to point out that his timetable was unrealistic, and I wrote to him again on 18 April 2011. The Secretary of State wrote a perfectly friendly response on both occasions, but simply denied that he had a problem.
	In November 2011, the Secretary of State announced that 1 million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014; in fact, there were approximately 6,000. In May 2012, he announced that new applications for existing benefits and credits would be entirely phased out by April 2014; Ministers now say that that will not happen until 2016. Even assuming that everything goes well from here, which it will not, the project is at least two years late.
	Late last year, it was finally admitted that the transition to universal credit will not be complete by 2017. Everybody has known that for months. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was right to make some very thoughtful comments about that. However, while everybody knew about the problems, Ministers flatly denied them. The Secretary of State told the House on 5 September 2013:
	“The plan is, and has always been, to deliver this programme within the four-year schedule to 2017…that is exactly what the plan is today. We will deliver this in time”.—[Official Report, 5 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 472.]
	That was complete fantasy. He was still doing it on 18 November, when he said that
	“universal credit will roll out and deliver exactly as we said it would.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 947.]
	Everybody knew that that was untrue. Why do Ministers not simply tell us the truth about what is going on? Some £40 million has been written off so far, with more undoubtedly to come.
	I was worried about achieving one universal credit IT system in anything like the proposed time scale, but we are now in the extraordinary situation of building two different universal credit IT systems. How much more will that cost? The Select Committee asked that question—surely that is what Select Committees are supposed to ask about—but the Government response simply does not provide any answers. Surely we can at least be told how much extra it will cost us to have two IT systems instead of one.
	Lessons also need to be learned from another group of serious failures—the governance failures in the project. To answer the question quite rightly asked by the hon. Member for Warrington South, five different officials have had responsibility for the project since it started. However, the central problem is that the project has been managed primarily with a view to minimising embarrassment for the Secretary of State. That is essentially what decisions have been about. Problems, when obvious, have simply been denied; information that would have shed light on what was going on has been buried; and the people who have asked difficult questions have been fobbed off. Members of the public have made freedom of information requests to see the risk register, the milestone schedule and the project assessment review, but applications have of course been refused,
	and when the Information Tribunal found in favour of those members of the public, the Department simply appealed again.
	Ministers are absolutely determined that nobody should know what is really happening. With this project, there is an obsession with hiding things; of pretending that all is well when it obviously is not; and, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, of only admitting to good news. That is not a culture that will deliver a successful project, and it certainly has not delivered success in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn referred to a “bunker mentality”, and there absolutely is such a mentality.
	Obsessive secrecy has no doubt spared the blushes of the Secretary of State, at least for a time, but it has hindered progress on the project. It has meant that it has taken longer than it should have done to recognise problems and to deal with them, and a large amount of money has been wasted. If, two years ago, the Secretary of State had put up his hands, and recognised that he and his advisers had got it wrong and that the project would take longer than they first said, much of the subsequent waste and delay could have been avoided. Instead, they just kept on denying that there were any problems, so the problems kept on getting worse—and the project is not finished yet.
	The project is at least two years late, and it will have wasted much more than the £130 million already acknowledged. It is essential, as the universal credit rescue committee has argued, that the project is now paused. Central policy decisions still have not been made—Ministers cannot spend hundreds of millions of pounds on an IT system, if they do not know what it is supposed to do—and Ministers have not made such decisions. As has rightly been said by the rescue committee, taking advice from the former chief information officer of Rolls-Royce, who served on it with distinction, we need a plan that is published, is audited by the National Audit Office and contains milestones with dates, so that everybody knows how the project is going. Why pretend that it going well when it clearly is not?

David Mowat: The point I made was that the review could be done in parallel with continuing the programme. Let us say that 1,000 people are working on the programme at the moment. What will the right hon. Gentleman do with those 1,000 people during that three-month review?

Stephen Timms: As I have said, the idea for the pause is based on the recommendation of Jonathan Mitchell, the retired chief information officer of Rolls-Royce, who has managed extremely large IT projects in that company—possibly even larger than those for which the hon. Gentleman had responsibility. He has said that when a project is as out of control as this one clearly is, it is essential to stop, to make policy decisions and to draw up a plan before simply shovelling in hundreds of millions pounds more.

David Mowat: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Timms: I will not, because I should conclude.
	Outstanding policy issues need to be decided, the work incentive design flaws need to be fixed and a hard-headed view needs to be taken about whether this project can be rescued within an acceptable time and cost. Opposition Members hope the answer to such a
	question will be yes, but we cannot assume that it will be. The question needs to be asked frankly and answered honestly. It should not be left until the election; it should be done now.

Esther McVey: I have listened to everything that has been said and I have a hefty set of answers to give, but let me put everything in context by starting with what I hope we can all agree on. In between the doom and gloom that swept across the Chamber from Opposition Members, they seemed to agree that the benefits system needs to be changed, and this Government are bringing about the fundamental reform that is needed. The biggest reform in 60 years will ensure that we reward work, support aspiration, encourage responsibility and help those who need it most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, this piece of work is of national importance. We cannot run away from making the significant changes that are so necessary; it is because they are so imperative that we are making them.
	Universal credit is at the heart of our reform. Its aim is to make work pay by ensuring that claimants are better off in work than on benefits. It will promote personal responsibility by ensuring that people actively seek work and increase earnings. At the same time, we will continue to provide support for those who need it most. Universal credit will have a positive impact on claimants. Up to 300,000 more people will be in work, and about 3 million more households will gain from universal credit, with an average gain of £177 per month. We are investing £600 million in child care support, with about 100,000 extra families becoming eligible for such support for the first time. From April 2016, 85% of eligible costs will be covered by the child care rate. Alongside that, thousands of disabled adults and children will receive more support, including a higher rate of support for all children who are registered blind.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: If I may carry on for a while, I will then answer the hon. Lady’s question.
	I want to thank the Select Committee for continuing to support the policy objectives of universal credit—improving incentives to work and, as has to be key, smoothing the transition from benefits into work. Public and parliamentary debate has focused on IT systems, and IT is an important enabler, but universal credit is much more than that; it is a transformational change that is building a welfare system fit for the 21st century. It is already making a difference to people and their lives: we have stronger work incentives, there is more support from work coaches and universal credit claimants are spending twice as much time looking for work because they have the extra support.
	We know that 90% of universal credit claimants are claiming online. Many Members spoke about the IT system.

Sheila Gilmore: Is it not the case that very high levels of jobseeker’s allowance claimants are claiming online anyway, so that is not really to do with universal credit? Is it not also the case that the number of hours people are spending looking for work has nothing uniquely to
	do with universal credit, because the Department has rolled out the claimant commitment far beyond those who are in receipt of universal credit?

Esther McVey: Obviously more people are going online because that is key to all our changes. When we were providing support during the roll-out, we were enabling people to get online and use IT. That was part of the system. Obviously it is working and more people are using IT and getting online. As for the claimant commitment, that is an integral precursor of universal credit. We had to ensure that all of our 26,300 members of staff knew how that worked. Of course they are working with JSA claimants, but that is one of the changes towards universal credit that we have put into place.
	Members have spoken about the IT system. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, who has worked so ably on such systems, spoke with much knowledge on this matter. I am afraid that there was no knowledge from Opposition Members on this matter. We all agree that it is a complex IT system. I believe that there is a logic that we can all follow in what is happening. We are ensuring that it is slow, it is steady and it is working. The IT system is probably best described as a series of component parts. Some of it will stay—that is known as the legacy system—some of it will be built on, some of it will be plugged in and other bits will be newly built and form part of the enhanced digital solution. As we are rolling out the system, we will constantly be learning and working on it to inform the enhanced digital solution. It is like a pincer effect: we are rolling out what we have and learning as we go along to inform the enhanced digital solution.

Bob Stewart: I am not au fait with IT systems, but I am au fait with very complicated plans. This is a very complicated plan, so the expectation must be that it will go wrong and require tinkering and adjustment right to the end. That is what we should expect; not some blueprint that will be perfect all the way through. We know where we want to go. We have to be prepared to make adjustments as we get there.

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend. That is why we are learning as we are rolling the system out and using that to inform what we are doing.
	We have a multi-disciplinary team of 90 people, 30 of whom are digital specialists. They are developing the digital system as we go along. It is not a twin-track approach. We are continually learning and informing. We have one system. That is what we are doing. I hope that that goes some way towards answering the questions that have been asked about IT. One thing that we can all agree on is that it is complex. We will learn as we go along and we have the right person doing the job.

Stephen Timms: Is it the case, as the Minister said in her written answer on Monday last week, that the Treasury has approved the universal credit business case—yes or no?

Esther McVey: I have just had the answer that I gave last week checked. It stated:
	“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement
	(5 December 2013, Official Report , column 65WS)”—[ Official Report , 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]
	That was the response and I have just had it verified.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister tell us, then, why the head of the civil service today told the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasury has not approved the universal credit business case?

Esther McVey: I will look into that additional point and get back to the right hon. Gentleman. On his last point, I have had the answer checked by my officials and it was correct.
	On the roll-out, the new service is now available in 24 areas across England, Wales and Scotland, where it is providing people with stronger incentives and support to get into work, stay in work and increase their income. On 23 June 2014, we began rolling out universal credit for single people to jobcentres across the north-west of England, starting with Hyde, Stalybridge, Stretford, and Altrincham. Last week, it went live in Southport, Crosby, Bootle, Bolton and Farnworth. I am pleased to say that today, Wirral, Birkenhead, Bromborough, Hoylake, Upton and Wallasey began accepting claims for the new benefit. Once the north-west expansion is complete, 90 jobcentres—that is one in eight jobcentres in Britain— will be offering universal credit.
	From 30 June, we expanded the service to couples in five of the existing live areas: Rugby, Bath, Inverness, Hammersmith and Harrogate. That meets our commitment to expanding the new service to more areas and to more claimant types from this summer. We will continue to roll out universal credit carefully in a safe and secure manner—starting small, testing and learning from delivery. That remains the right approach. Later in the autumn, it will be expanded to include families.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South answered the question about whether somebody will be able to feed in information about how many hours they work per week. Such real-time information is another part of the programme that we had the foresight to put in place. That is working well and the roll out of it is nearly 100% complete—it is more than 99% rolled out.
	I have just received a quote from a claimant in Warrington who is working 20 hours a week:
	“I’m currently working 20 hours a week but am able to pick up extra hours when overtime is on offer because UC is flexible in that way and I don’t have to worry about my benefit just stopping if I work more than 16 hours. I know I will still get support until I earn enough to completely pay my own way”.
	That is what we always intended to happen. There is a cushion of benefit to support people, but they are able to take extra hours and to progress in work without being stopped from working by the old-fashioned rules and regulations that Labour Members allowed to continue for so long. That is what we are trying to change. We all agreed, including the Select Committee, that those changes were needed. That is an example of a claimant saying what is happening to them right now under this system.
	Sadly, I come to the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). One thing on which we agree is that the media must talk about people and depict people carefully
	and sensitively. Nobody wants to point the finger at anybody. Nobody on the Government Benches has used any inflammatory language, because that is not right. I have always been very careful about the words that I use, because we all know people who have fallen on hard times and have needed the support of the state. It is imperative that each and every one of us checks our language, because it means a lot, whether it is on the internet, in newspapers or on the radio. I totally agree with her about that.
	However, I totally disagreed with the hon. Lady—I am sure she will understand this—when she asked how the Secretary of State is still in his job. I had to smile at that rather absurd comment, given what he has delivered in four years. We have a record number of people in work. We are delivering on youth unemployment: it has gone down consistently for nine consecutive months. It is now 100,000 lower than when Labour was in office. Under Labour, youth unemployment went up by 45%. We have had the biggest fall in long-term unemployment, which doubled under Labour, since 1998. There is not just a record number of women in work, but a record rate of women in work too. All of those things are why the Secretary of State is still in his job: he has changed things around fundamentally.
	The hon. Lady talks about a £40 million write-down. Projects of this size usually have about 30% write-down rate—this has a 10% rate. Labour’s track record of IT failure is £26 billion written off with no scope whatever, so we can move on to why universal credit is so important. Even the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is very clear about the benefits of universal credit, recently stating:
	“Universal Credit is a once in a generation opportunity to reform a failing and overly-complex system. It will revoke the worst work incentives of the current system, smooth transitions in and out of work and make it easier for people to access all the support they are entitled to.”
	Those are the reasons why we are correct in pursuing universal credit.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and the Department have simplified the system, making it easier for recipients to understand what they can do to claim benefit. Above all, if they are capable of working, they should be in work. In contrast, the Labour party made the system so byzantine that our constituents had to appeal constantly to get the answers they wanted.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is spot on. Not only was it complex, but people sometimes did not know whether to take a job. People were locked into a life of benefits because they did not know if they would have been better off working. We are changing that.
	I have listened to the points raised by hon. Members and I hope I have provided more clarity. I believe that we are making a transformational change. Yes, it needs to be slow and steady—[Interruption.] I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is laughing. We are putting people into work. We are getting them off benefits. We are helping them to progress and supporting them into work. That is what those on the Government Benches are about: support and reforming the benefit system to the benefit of all of the UK.
	Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Common Agricultural Policy

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2013-14, Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England 2014-20, HC 745, and the Government response, HC 1088.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £968,601,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £371,350,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,308,388,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the opportunity to debate the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to his comments.
	Looking at the estimates for the forthcoming year, it appears that there will be a 2% increase in the overall budget against last year’s final position in the 2012-13 supplementary estimate. It appears that the £43 million increase in programme spend is largely due to the £124 million increase due to the transfer of the CAP disallowance funding from 2013-14 to 2014-15, in line with a Treasury agreement to allow flexibility in disallowance funding between years. There is also a £38.4 million increase to the Environment Agency’s flood management budget, which is extremely welcome and includes the £20 million announced in the 2014 Budget. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, reassured us that this is new money and that we are not being asked to make savings from, for example, the EA’s Yorkshire and Humber budget to transfer to other parts of the country. That leads to the question, since I understand that the National Audit Office is not in the position to provide figures for the debate, of what the projected figures for disallowance, and any quantifiable fines from the new CAP reform coming into effect next year, will be.
	Against that backdrop, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was extremely pleased to consider the Department’s proposals. When we reported last year, we found much to like. We support the Government’s intention to raise the minimum level of claim threshold to five hectares, and to move money uphill. It is extremely important to state at the outset, however, that that money must go to active farmers and not simply to those who own the land. I would like to go into some detail in that regard, and the Minister cannot help but be aware of our particular concerns.
	I would like to record my particular thanks to the previous Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was mindful of our concerns about areas where common land is prevalent. The
	Committee supports the Government’s position that England should adhere, as closely as possible, to the greening measures set out in the direct payments regulation, and not adopt a national certification scheme approach to greening. In our conclusions, we recommend that the Government maintain the 9% rate of transfer from pillar one to pillar two, and only move to 15% in 2017 if they can demonstrate that additional funds are required and that there is a clear benefit from the projects proposed. Clearly, a compromise of 12% is less than 15% and more than 9%. Perhaps the Minister will share the Government’s thinking in that regard, but we are pleased that the farming voice, and that of the Committee, was heard.
	The Committee recommends that the Government take steps to ensure that those actively farming receive the direct payments and that those farmers who have responded to the call to diversify are not captured inadvertently on the “negative list” of business types ineligible for CAP funding under pillar one. We recommend that the Government update the commons registers and allow commoners associations to claim on behalf of all those who actively farm commons, so that the commons attract the share of pillar one money intended for them. I am aware of the position in North Yorkshire and Cumbria, and that the register will be updated from October. I believe that in County Durham and other parts the situation might be slightly different. My concern, which I am sure the Committee shares, is that the update to the register cannot take place before 1 January 2015, so a number of eligible claims will be excluded. What will happen to specific claims that are relevant and should be awarded, but may not be in place by 1 January 2015? It would be extremely helpful to put the minds of those farmers at rest.
	The Committee supports the continuation of dual use under pillar two, but we think that Natural England must display a lot more rigour in arranging agri-environment contracts to ensure that payments under those schemes go to those who do the work and whose income is forgone. We make a specific recommendation that I hope will be echoed across the House this evening—that Natural England must be in a position to give advice. It should not be seen just as the policeman; it must be there to provide advice to farmers who seek it.
	One of the central recommendations—it is certainly close to my heart, given the area that I represent—is that where there is a dispute between landowners, tenants and graziers, they must have access to a dispute resolution mechanism, set up along similar lines to that suggested by the tenancy reform industry group. In this day and age, it is worrying that those whose interests are sometimes ignored or trodden on should not have access to arbitration or a simple, swift dispute resolution mechanism along the lines we propose.
	The Select Committee highlights the risks associated with the Government’s plans to develop a new single IT system for CAP funding through which all agencies would be able to administer the CAP. We do not wish to rehearse the grief from previous Administrations, but we are aware of recent history and we do not wish it to be repeated. An undertaking and some assurance from the Minister that that is not intended would be most welcome this evening.
	We support the Government’s ambition to encourage and support as many people as possible to apply for CAP funding online, but that approach will simply not
	be available to some farmers. We received an assurance from a DEFRA Minister in our recent deliberations that a paper-based application process would be retained and that guidance will be provided in paper format in the run-up to the new scheme. It was thus of some concern when the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, in giving evidence to the Committee in April this year, told us that there is absolutely no way that a paper format application can be made. That will send shockwaves through rural areas.
	In my own constituency, I had a briefing from NYnet, the county council’s regime that is working in tandem with BT to try to roll out broadband in the area. By 2015-2016, however, only 78% of my Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency will be covered. That means that 22% of Thirsk, Malton and Filey will have no access—I repeat, no access at all—to fast-speed broadband. That 22% is where all the farming communities live, and it means that they will be severely disadvantaged. We are all familiar with those trying to apply online who find either no access or receive internet access that is so slow that all the information that has been entered can be lost just as people are trying to press the send button.
	I say to the Minister that it is no comfort to farmers to be told that they should seek a satellite connection, as they simply cannot afford the prohibitive cost. I repeat the Committee’s recommendation to the Government that the BT money that is being rolled out—particularly the element coming from the BBC licence fee and the next round of licensing—should go to those rural communities across England that have the slowest speed and the weakest broadband coverage. We cannot expect the farming community to go digital by default from 1 January, yet have no access to broadband.

Margaret Ritchie: I, too, am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Lady agree that throughout the UK and particularly in isolated rural areas, farmers are being marginalised because of lack of proper access to broadband, and that the Minister should use his good offices to make representations to BT about that problem? That issue was highlighted in our rural communities report. Does the hon. Lady further agree with me—on a compelling point that she made—that there is a need for proper guidance and form filling to be available in paper form?

Anne McIntosh: I thank the hon. Lady for her sterling contribution and excellent work on the Select Committee. I agree that this goes to the heart of how applications will be made from 1 January. We need clarification, because we cannot have the Minister saying one thing and the RPA saying another. If, as the RPA assured us, paper forms will not be available to submit, intensive tuition must be made available to those required to go digital from 1 January.
	I want to raise one or two more points before putting some questions to the Minister. Another issue that the RPA shared with the Committee during the evidence session in April is that the reality will be less than was first hoped and more complex, even without the known unknowns such as the disallowance or fines. The cost to
	implement will, according to the RPA, be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes and, possibly, than previously thought. I shall ask the Minister a couple of direct questions about that.
	The impact of flooding on farmland is another important issue that cannot be underestimated. Thousands of acres in Yorkshire and the Humber area were under water in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and thousands of acres were under water in Somerset and the south-western parts of Scotland at the time of flood incidents. The impact on the productivity of farming has been severe.
	Will the Minister confirm whether farmers will be eligible for parts of the CAP, perhaps under pillar two, and the rural development fund if not agri-monetary schemes, for storing water on land? How long would it take? Will such storage constitute reservoirs? When will DEFRA be in a position to publish the reservoir safety guidance, for which we have been waiting for some months if not two years, because it will have a direct bearing on this matter?
	Is it a source of disappointment to DEFRA that the CAP reforms have in many respects become more complex and less simple in an already complex system? Is it indeed the case that the CAP schemes are likely to be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes, and how has the Department budgeted for that in the estimates? Is the Department seeking to simplify and minimise the administrative cost in the new schemes, even against that backdrop?
	Will the Minister respond to a question that has been asked by me and by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) this evening? In April, the RPA told our Committee:
	“It is not actually possible to submit by paper to the new scheme, because of the way that it is structured.”
	That completely contradicts what Ministers told us in their evidence. I repeat that farmers in areas with no broadband service face considerable problems. Will the Minister assure us that making access to CAP funding digital by default will not cause problems for farmers in areas that lack broadband coverage or significant speeds? Will he also assure us that the new digital support centres, which form an important part of the assisted digital service, will be accessible to all farmers, including hill farmers in relatively remote locations such as mine? Will he confirm that there will be a certain degree of privacy, and that farmers will not be expected to sit in a public place such as a library sharing commercially sensitive information with members of the public? The Committee believes that that would not be appropriate.
	What makes the Minister think that the United Kingdom’s allocation of pillar two funds, which was much less than had been predicted, will not adversely affect the competitiveness of English farmers, especially in view of the fact that the Government now say that they will modulate 12% and that the proportion will increase to 15% if they believe that to be necessary? What will be the criteria for the move to a 15% rate of transfer from pillar one—direct payments—to support in the final two years of the pillar two rural development programmes? As I have said, we are pleased that the Government listened to the views of the farming community and those of the Committee before reaching their decision, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what those criteria will be.
	In June, the Secretary of State unveiled the details of how the Department would implement the greening rules in England, and referred to a specific problem relating to hedges. He said that the need to validate all claims and map digitally every hedge to EU standards might significantly increase the risk of delayed payments to those who adopted that option. What progress has DEFRA made in talking to banks to ensure that farmers who receive late payments as a consequence of the inclusion of hedges in ecological focus areas will be treated sympathetically? What guidance will it give farmers in regard to how hedges should be measured? I am sure that the Minister will want to allay our concerns, and those of farmers who have contacted us, about any change in the date on which farm payments will be made. What effect will the inclusion of hedges as an option enabling farmers to comply with EFA requirements have on disallowance risk? Will the Minister tell us how the Department will forecast what that risk will be?
	During the evidence session, when asked about the level of disallowance that the agency expected to incur under the new CAP, the chief executive of the RPA told the Committee
	“we would be doing incredibly well if we can hold disallowance to 2% of future scheme expenditure”,
	which is calculated to be in the order of £40 million. From that, it would be reasonable to infer that the UK’s disallowance risk will be increased. We are at a disadvantage this evening because we are debating the subject without the figures from the National Audit Office.
	The proposal to “move money uphill” is obviously welcome, but, as I said earlier, we must ensure that it is those who are actively farming, particularly on common land, who will benefit. DEFRA announced in April that farmers in England who operate within the moorland line would receive approximately £26 more per hectare in direct payments under the new CAP, an increase of about 90% in the moorland rate. That is great news, and a victory for commons, given that 96% of upland commons are above the moorland line. I repeat, however, that we must ensure that the money goes to the commons and the graziers. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to our request for a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be great if he could also assure us that commoners and graziers who wish to claim payments under the new CAP schemes will not be disadvantaged by the poor state of the registers in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, County Durham or elsewhere.
	The new environmental management schemes which are open to all upland farmers are obviously welcome, but I hope the Minister will assure us that those farmers will not be left worse off overall by the changes introduced under the new scheme if, as a result of the comprehensive area assessment, the new environmental land management schemes are not open to farmers who are currently operating the uplands entry level stewardship schemes.
	I would like to end by highlighting how current payments have worked least well: in respect of rewarding active farmers and graziers on the common land. It is crucial that those who are actively involved in the commons—those active farmers and graziers, or at least those who perform an active part in managing the commons—receive payment timeously, whereas people who do nothing with the commons should not receive a payment where that is not appropriate. Therefore, I urge the Minister to agree that lessons must be learned from
	how the existing direct payment scheme—the single payment scheme—was implemented in relation to common land, and to ensure that those who till the land on our behalf are indeed the beneficiaries of the new proposals.
	With those comments and questions, we await with great interest the Minister’s response.

Helen Goodman: I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), on producing a very pertinent report.
	On previous occasions I have found the Minister to be a very reasonable, intelligent and empathetic person, and I hope those qualities are going to be on display at the Dispatch Box tonight. I was slightly disappointed when I initiated a debate about the hill farmers in Teesdale that he was not able to respond, but I am going to put the points again in the hope of getting a slightly more sympathetic response than I received previously.
	In my constituency, there are a large number of hill farmers who are very much affected by these CAP changes. It is an unusual area, because they are almost entirely tenant farmers farming on common land. They have been farming in the same way for about 500 years, and they have produced a very special way of life and a very special and valuable ecology, so I applaud the remarks in the report and from the Select Committee Chair on common land.
	When I went to see the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, it was particularly concerned because it felt that the European Union had not understood the way commons operate in this country and that the rules at European level were not very sensitive to the needs of English hill farmers for that reason. There was also concern about the change in the payment times in the underlying reforms: payments had previously been made on a six-monthly cycle but people were going to have to wait much longer—sometimes 18 months and in one case as long as nine years. That is a significant problem.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and it allows me to refer to the register, which is out of date. My brother and I have shared a farm in Teesdale, of which the hon. Lady is aware. Does she realise that Teesdale is often cited as the area whose farmers earn the lowest income of any hill farmers in England and Wales?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady is right. Newcastle university estimates that the average income of a farmer in my constituency is £11,000 a year. Many of them are on working tax credits—or were on them under the previous Government, but I am not sure how many of them are still getting the working tax credits.
	The Select Committee report is excellent on the major problem such hill farmers face, which is to do with delivery: the totally inadequate service that the farmers receive from the Rural Payments Agency because of the requirement to apply for money online and because the system is constantly collapsing. The Select Committee report states at paragraph 34 that
	“farmers can be heavily penalised for a genuine mistake but not appropriately compensated when it is the Rural Payments Agency who is in error.”
	What has happened repeatedly in recent months is that the farmers have gone to upload their data and information, and the RPA computer system has been down, necessitating the farmers to go home and come back another day. That is absolutely absurd. Sometimes they have a round trip of 20 miles to access the computer in the UTASS centre in Middleton in Teesdale. When the system is down, they have wasted several hours and have to go back another day in the vain hope it will be up again. I wrote to the Minister about this, and I really think he should not be penalising the farmers when the RPA is at fault.
	The next extremely pertinent recommendation from the Select Committee is recommendation 36, which states:
	“The IT system remains, however, one of the standout challenges of this round…Given the lessons of the past we question whether this is the right time to be introducing a new IT system.”
	How very right the Committee is. It is not just about a new IT system, with all the risks, complexities and problems that a new system always seems to entail in this country; one of my local farmers calculated that because DEFRA’s systems are so complex, and because he has to apply to so many different things and for each system he is meant to have a different authentication, he is supposed to remember 27 different personal identification numbers. This is absurd. This is grotesque. This is Kafkaesque. I find it difficult to remember my bank number and the number to get into the House of Commons, so how can these farmers, whose real job is farming up on the hill, be expected also to run the sort of complex IT system that would make a banker blench?
	The Select Committee’s next point, which is absolutely right, was about the importance of encouraging and supporting people to apply online but realising that
	“there will be some for whom such an approach is not appropriate. A paper-based application process must be retained”.
	That is absolutely essential. Once upon a time, the farmers got the forms through the post, sat at their kitchen table, had a cup of tea, filled the forms out, put the stamp on the envelope, shoved it in the post box and, boom, the whole thing was done. Now that is not possible and the farmers have to drive to the library or the UTASS centre to get help with the uploading.
	The whole thing is completely inefficient because, as recommendation 38 indicates, the rural broadband programme has not succeeded so far. We know that 5 million people in this country do not have access to broadband. Until 100% of people have access to broadband, how can it make sense to have a totally online approach and not have a paper-based approach alongside it? In my constituency, 40% of the farmers have no access to rural broadband, so DEFRA and the RPA are taking an absurd approach. It is essential to maintain a paper-based system. It is not reasonable for the Government to make public spending cuts through a digital-by-default process and pass all the burden back to the farmers for delivering the Government’s own administration system. The farmers experience that as oppressive and nerve wracking; it raises anxiety levels to a completely unreasonable pitch, given the significance of what the Government have to do.

Mark Spencer: I hope that the hon. Lady is not painting a picture of the old system through rose-tinted spectacles. As I am sure she will
	recall, when the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) was in charge of DEFRA there was a paper-based system whereby farmers were not paid for years, never mind weeks. At least under the current regime the majority of farmers are paid on 1 December, allowing their cash flow and business to flourish.

Helen Goodman: We will see whether the hon. Gentleman’s picture of the current system turns out to be right—I do not think it is accurate. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South was particularly happy with the criticisms I made of the system in the previous Parliament—they were also significant—but the fact is that this Minister is in the DEFRA hot seat now and it is his responsibility to run a system which is usable and farmer friendly. That patently is not happening at the moment. I am extremely concerned to hear the Chair of the Select Committee say that the head of the Rural Payments Agency is considering not having a paper-based system when we know that the rural broadband roll-out programme will take another three or possibly four years. It is absolutely plain that we need a paper-based system for another five years, and I hope that the Minister will be able to stand at the Dispatch Box, allay all the fears of our farmers and tell us that that is what he will ensure happens.

James Paice: May I start by reminding the House of my interests, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
	It fell to me as the then Minister to start the negotiations for what is now seen as the reform of the common agricultural policy. I never know why we use the word “reform” because that is the last thing that we actually have. We have ended up with a complete mish-mash, which is really unacceptable in today’s world. The CAP is about to be implemented. The subject of tonight’s debate bears all the relevance and the power of initiation by the Commission and reflects the impossibility of 27 Ministers managing to agree on any suitable alternative. For the Commission to claim that it represents a stroke of common sense is clearly nonsense. We have ended up with a very complicated system that will not help farming move forward and that does not face up to the changed realities of the world in which we live—a world in which, in the next 30 or 40 years, the supply of food may well not meet demand. European agriculture will not reform as it should to meet those challenges.
	I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister negotiated an overall reduction in the CAP spend—the first for many years. I am sorry that it necessitated what can only be described as “handsome bungs” to France and Italy to get their agreement to the cut, and that we therefore ended up with a reduction to pillar two funding, which is unfortunate.
	The Government are absolutely right in the way that they have gone about implementing much of these reforms. I particularly welcome the measure to help young farmers. I suspect that deep in the belly of Government, particularly in the Treasury, there is some resentment that that decision has been made compulsory. It is something that I have always believed should be part of British policy, and it is something that has been commonplace elsewhere in Europe. I am delighted that it is now part of the system.
	The Government are also right to continue the same entitlements and regions, and I strongly support the moving of support uphill—the increased funding for moorlands—for all the reasons that we have heard. Of course I entirely support the move towards simplicity and the way that the Government have tried to reduce some of the burdens. Getting rid of the soil protection review, for example, is one measure I strongly welcome. None the less, I have a few comments to make.
	My first comment relates to the three-crop rule that has now been imposed. I understand why it arose. I believe that it originated from the problems in Germany where there has been constant mono-cropping of maize for anaerobic digestion, which has been damaging to the environment. But what we have will achieve nothing. We have not achieved a rotation. There is nothing to stop farmers growing the same crop in the same field year after year as long as they grow the right percentages overall on their farm. Whereas farmers who actually practise a rotation by block-cropping with another farmer—the whole farm goes into wheat in year one and the next door farm goes into oilseed rape or beans and then they swap the following year—will not be allowed to do so under the new rules. They will have to grow a bit of each on each farm, which will add considerably to their costs. As it is not creating genuine rotation, it is a pointless and bureaucratic exercise that will achieve nothing for the environment.
	Secondly, there are the environmental focus areas. Again, a broad-brush arbitrary figure of 5% has been decided on at European level. There is ample evidence now from a number of research bodies, including work the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done, that what really matters is not the area of land we manage for conservation but the way that we manage it—ensure that it is properly managed and not neglected year after year. This plan makes no reference to that, and that is a major error in the system.
	I welcome the decision to include hedgerows in the ecological focus areas. It is right that they should be included, but I am concerned about what that will mean not just for mapping, which has been mentioned, but for entitlements. The Minister might want to reflect on that. The areas of land that farmers farm—that is, the area that they claim against—might not include their hedgerows, but when those areas are taken in, as they need to be in order to be within the 5%, farmers might not have enough entitlements for the overall amount of land that they will then be considered to farm. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
	Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, I pay tribute to how the Rural Payments Agency has made dramatic strides since the days when her party were in government. When we took office, every farmer in the land was incensed by the performance of the RPA and it is now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) rightly said, delivering the vast majority of payments on day one of the window, at the beginning of December. That is a considerable achievement by the present management and I think they should be rewarded and recognised for what they have managed to achieve.
	The challenges of implementing the new system are huge. It is far more complicated and, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, will cost a
	considerable extra amount that the Government can ill afford. It is also an absolute waste of money given the bureaucracy that I have described. For the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to suggest that the present system should be continued and that now is not the time to change systems belies belief. The present system is, metaphorically, held together by string and sticky tape. It is completely obsolete, even for the process it currently tries to operate, and it is a tribute to the RPA that it has managed to improve performance even using such an obsolete system. To suggest that it could somehow manage the new process is ludicrous.
	I also wanted to mention appeals. I hope that under the new system the Government will ensure a satisfactory appeals process. I must confess, even though I had to judge those appeals for a time, that the current system is not satisfactory. Individual responsibilities, the responsibility of the RPA and the whole background of penalties and EU disallowances are not clear. Let me use one of the most ludicrous cases I saw as an example to demonstrate what has to change. Somebody had sent all the forms in to the RPA by registered post and yet the claim was rejected on the basis that it had never arrived. When the farmer submitted the registered post docket to the RPA to show that the letter had gone, he got a letter back saying that that proved that an envelope had been received but did not say what was in it. I felt that that was ludicrous, but there was no absolute proof that the RPA had received the forms and it was impossible to allow the claim. The new appeals system must cover such situations.
	I strongly support the points that have been made about digital by default. I hope that the Minister will reconsider it and ensure that farmers are entitled to continue to use paper at least until they can access broadband. I am trying to be constructive, so if he concludes that that is not possible I suggest that he finds a way of ensuring that farmers who employ land agents—as many do, of course—solely because they cannot access broadband themselves should be recompensed in some way, perhaps by a small discrete sum within pillar two.
	That leads me to pillar two and the rural development programme. I take issue with the Government over how the funding has been split, because they seem to have fallen for the line that if one spends more, one gets more. That does not always work. Even though we all know that the pot is not as large as we would like it to be, I regret the Government’s decision to increase the share of the pot going to the environment, not because I do not care about the environment—I strongly care—but because it has been abundantly clear over the past 10 years or so that simply spending money on the environment does not necessarily produce results. What really matter are outcomes and far more should be directed at those. We could have ensured that a greater share of the rural development pot was used for other purposes, in particular the economy and innovation in farming, to enable farmers to face the inevitable decline in the basic payment, as it is to be called, and no doubt its eventual disappearance. Farmers need to be able to invest and face up to that day. Just £140 million out of £3.5 billion to assist farmers is not a good deal.
	On the new environmental land management scheme, my hon. Friend the Minister will know what I am about to say. I recognise that there is a £2.2 billion overhang from the current system of entry-level schemes and
	higher level stewardship, which must clearly be allowed for, but I am concerned about the way the new scheme will operate and the potential for cherry-picking. The implication is that funding will go only into schemes where it is likely to do most good. There are vast areas of the country, including much of my constituency in the north, in the fens and further up into northern Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, which nobody will pretend are the most beautiful areas, or that they contain a massive abundance of wildlife, but if such areas receive no funding and are completely outside the new scheme, the situation will get worse. We might end up with biodiversity deserts, because the funding has been concentrated on the hotspots. I hope the Government will look at that carefully.
	Our land is precious. The report that came out two weeks ago from Cambridge university about agricultural land use over the next few decades makes salutary reading. It demonstrates that in the worst-case scenario we could be 7 million hectares of land short in the next 30 or 40 years. Clearly, that cannot be made up. It demonstrates that all policies must address the use of our land in the most effective way to combine looking after the environment with food production, its primary purpose. There is a great deal more to be done to achieve that. These reforms are not the right way forward, but I commend the Government on the way they have tried to implement an impossible task.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I suggest that we aim for around 10 minutes each? That way we will get everybody in nicely, including the Front Benchers.

Roger Williams: I, too, draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests regarding agriculture.
	The debate tonight is on the CAP in England, and my farm is in Wales so it is not covered, but the common agricultural policy and the way it is delivered in the United Kingdom have implications for all the devolved nations as well. The important word is “common”. While the UK farmers continue to compete within the European single market, we need a common policy. It is important that we remain within the single market: 40% of all lamb produced in the UK is exported. Although we welcome some of that lamb going to the middle east, and some, we hope, to China in the future and perhaps even to the United States, the bulk of the lamb goes to the continent.
	We have a single market there, a market that is open for every second of every minute of every hour of every day throughout the whole year. I can remember when we did not know whether that market was open or not. We could take lambs to market and one day they were worth £10 less because the market was closed; the next day they were worth £10 more because the market suddenly opened. That was no way to do business.
	The original purpose of the common agricultural policy was to lift incomes in rural areas, and that is as important now as it was then; incomes in rural areas
	are still lower than in urban areas. A reduction in the European Union budget naturally resulted in lower pillar one and pillar two allocations. I am particularly concerned about upland areas, where incomes are very low. Hardly any farm businesses would show a profit without the single farm payment, and those that did would generate no cash for investment, yet in his written evidence about food security to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), said:
	“Farm subsidies can allow inefficient farmers to continue to operate a farm rather than exit the industry.”
	Giving oral evidence to the Committee, he said:
	“we can support farming better through Pillar 2”.
	I can tell him that that causes considerable apprehension in farming communities, particularly in the uplands.
	The family farm remains the foundation of the rural community and the rural economy. Money received by farmers gets recycled among many local businesses—garages, shops and other tradespeople. The single farm payment enables farmers to invest, become more efficient, and be more market-facing. It gives farming businesses the resilience to come through periods of poor weather when outputs are reduced and costs soar, as in spring 2013. Any suggestion of moving away from direct payments would devastate many rural areas, break down the cohesion of rural communities, and have a drastic effect on traditional production chains and, indeed, total food production.
	I turn to the thorny issue of voluntary modulation, which turned into an almighty row between farming organisations and environmentally focused charities—and one can understand why. Those on both sides of the argument were going to receive less money. Pillar one was reduced by 2.7%, and pillar two by 5.5%. One might ask why there is not this row in other countries. Only five other countries of the 27 in the European Union even engage in voluntary modulation at all, and two do it in the reverse order, moving money from pillar two to pillar one. The Flanders area of Belgium modulates by 5.5%, Germany by 4.5%, France by 3.3%, Latvia by 7.4%—we have to remember that it had a 50% increase in its pillar two allocation—and the Netherlands by 2.5%.
	Of course, as we have heard, in England the modulation is 12%, probably rising to 15% in 2018. In Wales, there is 15% modulation. In Scotland I believe it is 9.5%, and it is zero in Ireland. Why is the UK such an exception to all this? The answer probably lies in the UK’s pillar two allocation. The UK receives €2.3 billion for pillar two in this financial period, whereas Poland receives €9.7 billion, Italy €9.2 billion, France €8.8 billion, Spain €7.3 billion, and Germany €3.3 billion. Why does the UK have such a poor allocation for pillar two? I will not go into the suggested reasons, but there is common cause to be made. The farming unions could combine with the environmental charities to review our pillar two allocation fundamentally, which would be good for farmers, the environment, rural communities and the UK as a whole. Our pillar two allocation is low, which I do not understand. I cannot find any reason why we have such a poor allocation. Increasing the allocation would be good for our farming community, but it would be good for our environment, too.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who made a good case for Welsh farmers. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). He referred to the Rural Payments Agency and how much it has improved, much of which was down to his stewardship when he was a Minister. He worked very hard, and payments are getting out on time. We inherited quite a mess, which leads me on neatly to my first point.
	When the single farm payment was introduced in 2003-04, there was no doubt that the Beckett formula was complicated. It took years to sort that out, and we paid more than half a billion pounds in fines to the EU for the mistakes that were made. We do not want to repeat those mistakes, and I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we do not do so. I have been sold on the idea that the maps are best done digitally, especially because of the hedgerows and everything else, but if farmers do not have access to broadband, they either have to have somewhere to go—not just a library but somewhere where they can access broadband securely and privately—or they have to be able to use agents. Farmers do not expect to be given a fortune, but they need money to do that. We are working hard to deliver rural broadband, and I am certain that we will get there, but we are not there now. If we make a mess of introducing the reform in the first year, it will carry on year in and year out. That is precisely what happened with the previous system, and it took years to sort it out. In fact, there are some cases that have never been sorted out.
	I hope that people who were not able to register under the old system for various reasons—some people pursued their registration for years—are able finally to register their land under the new system. I also pay tribute to the idea that young farmers should be helped, because the population of this country and the world is growing and we need to produce more food.

Jesse Norman: I share my hon. Friend’s views on the importance of supporting young farmers. On the question of broadband, does he share my view that there is scope for supporting wireless broadband to reach rural areas that are hard to reach by wired means, as it were?

Neil Parish: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Wireless broadband will reach parts of my constituency in the Blackdown hills that fibre optics will not, but wireless broadband will not necessarily get there in time to ensure that applications for the single farm payment can be made online. That is why we must take care to get the payment right in the first year.
	Ensuring that it is the working farmer who receives the payment is a good idea, and I am interested in what the Minister has to say about that, but we do not want to create the biggest bureaucratic nightmare to prove whether someone is or is not the farmer. If we are not careful, we will make the system increasingly complicated.
	I spent rather a long time—some might say too long—dealing with the CAP in another place, and I think that one of the overall problems is that across
	28 countries, from Finland to Greece, from Poland to Germany and right through to Great Britain and Ireland, there are so many crops that can be grown, so many soil types, so many temperatures and so many amounts of rainfall, with some areas getting very little and others being flooded, that if we try to come forward with a common policy, we will end up with the biggest mess known to man and woman. There is no doubt about it. We cannot have a common policy unless there is much greater flexibility.
	Are we to have a policy that demands three rotational crops, because Germany grows solidly maize, maize and maize? This country has very diverse farming and lands, with uplands and grasslands, but many countries have hardly any grassland. Somebody driving from Calais to Berlin will see hardly a single hedge the whole way there, because they have all been ripped up over the years as a result of a different policy on the way they farm. We have great hedges, and it is good that they have become ecological focus areas. In my view, the hedges are probably the most important part of a field, because they are home to wildlife and birds. That, above all, is what we need to concentrate on.

Mark Spencer: I wonder whether one of the unexpected outcomes of trying to apply that policy across the whole of Europe is that we will end up supporting the least efficient farmers and those that are economically challenged, perhaps because they farm in arid areas or small alpine villages, whereas we should actually be supporting the most efficient farmers, many of whom are in France or the UK.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is right to a degree, but is it right that the most productive land across the whole of Europe, including in East Anglia, should get the highest payments, given that farmers there can make the most from that land? We must have some balance in the process. We have talked about the uplands tonight, and there is no doubt that upland livestock farmers struggle. In my view, it could be argued—my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire will probably jump out of his seat—that some of those farmers in East Anglia, Cambridgeshire and elsewhere across the country who can grow very good arable crops, perhaps 10 tonnes of wheat per hectare, could see just a little bit of those payments move uphill. That is what we are trying to do, but I think that we probably need to do a little more. There is an argument there, but I think that we need to ensure that we support farming in those marginal areas, which is more difficult.
	We must also ensure that in the end we deliver a policy that encourages food production. It is great to support the environment, but we must remember that in the uplands and on a lot of the permanent pasture on the hills it is the cattle and sheep that will keep farming as it is. It was not put there by God; it was put there by farmers. We must remember that it is the farmers who look after the countryside. We must remember that in order to support them, we must ensure that they have an income. We have to spread that as far and wide as we can.

Bob Stewart: On this, my 65th birthday—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mark Spencer: Retire!

Bob Stewart: Certainly. Will my hon. Friend enlighten me as to whether we have any control over how we allocate the CAP in England, or is that decided in Brussels?

Neil Parish: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on reaching that great age. There are—dare I say it?—others in the House who have reached an even greater age. He asks a difficult question. We are limited by how much of it we can decide ourselves, as a lot is decided by the European Commission and, finally, the Council. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, it is very difficult to change things at that stage. We can tweak some of the environmental schemes a bit—there are the odd things we can do—but in the end we have to go along with much of what is in the policy.
	Overall, the CAP overall should be moving towards a simpler system, but we are not getting that. We should be weaning farmers off more and more public support, but I want that to happen across the whole of Europe. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, there are many different types and levels of payment. Margaret Thatcher said, “Don’t buck the markets”, but that is exactly what we do. We have all sorts of different levels of payments across the whole of Europe and then expect farmers to compete in a single market, which is almost impossible. More and more of the subsidy should be phased out, and farmers should increasingly stand on their own two feet. We should make sure that we get a decent price for food and use biotechnology to produce even more food so that in the end we can feed the growing population.

Mark Spencer: I start by drawing Members’ attention to my declaration of interest in the register.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, the countryside we see today is the result of many generations of farmers who have managed it and created the landscape that we hold so dear. For many generations, they did that without any support from politicians or Governments because they cared for the countryside and wanted to farm for many generations to come.
	The common agricultural policy is probably the single most successful policy ever dreamt up by a politician in that it was designed to keep Europe well fed. For three generations, our nation has enjoyed supermarkets and shops full of food, and people have become used to having food on the shelves when they demand it. During the war, my grandmother would go to the shops to buy lamb chops and be told, “You can’t have lamb chops—you’ll have beef dripping”, and she would have accepted that. We have now had two or three generations of consumers who have no concept of what food insecurity is like. We should be very grateful not only to the common agricultural policy but to our farmers for giving us this period of being well fed.
	Many changes are coming in the common agricultural policy shakedown, and not all of them should be welcomed. There are large implications for how the UK’s food will be produced in future. We should bear in mind that
	food production and our being well fed as a nation is the fundamental point of this policy. Putting that at risk would be a great disaster.

Jesse Norman: The National Farmers Union has said:
	“A modulation rate of 9%”
	on pillar two
	“would have been able to fund all current DEFRA rural development programmes, renew all agreements expiring within the funding period and have a further £1 billion to spend on new commitments.”
	Does my hon. Friend agree that makes it harder for UK farmers to compete, and has this not worked out as well as well as he would have liked?

Mark Spencer: As I was saying, a number of challenges are coming up. UK farmers are particularly skilled at competing. For at least two generations, they have competed on an uneven playing field and managed to continue their business in doing so. I accept my hon. Friend’s point. It is also worth bearing in mind that the taxpayer is putting an enormous amount of cash into the system and so has to get not only food security but a benefit to the environment that they are not getting at the moment.
	It is very easy to stand up in this Chamber, be critical of Ministers and say that they could have done this or that. What we do not hear about, however, is the stuff that the Secretary of State and the Minister block—the ideas from Europe that did not make it into the final agreement. If the Minister has time during his summing up, it would be interesting if he could indicate some of the things he was able to stop happening that would have had us jumping up and down in the Chamber if they had made it through and some of our near neighbours on the continent had got their way.
	Many Members have referred to the need for broadband in order to deliver the documentation required to make an application. There are farmers in Nottinghamshire who are based within 5 miles of the city centre of Nottingham whose current internet speed is 3 megabits. It is almost quicker to drive to Nottingham to collect a form than it is to try to dial-up on the internet to download it. They are very close to a major urban population, but BT has no plans to take them out of that not spot. Nottinghamshire county council has a programme to roll out broadband across Nottinghamshire, but unfortunately those farmers are not part of that programme. We have to find a way to help them.

Richard Drax: The other day, I took an entrepreneur to see another Minister about setting up a private system of wireless connection. In north Dorset over a period of weeks, he has got hold of some very big names to establish a system of up to between 30 and 50 megabits. The point he made was that BT needs to be far more transparent with the public and tell all of us what exactly it will be able to achieve and, if it cannot do that by a certain time, entrepreneurs should be given far more encouragement by our Government to get in there and sort out this problem.

Mark Spencer: I recognise that new technologies may be able to assist, but there will always be not spots—those little black holes—where people are left out of the system. We need to find a way to help those farmers.
	I think that the three-crop rule is one of those well-intended European Union rules that will have unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) has referred to the fact that many areas are block-farmed. Large contracting companies that help their neighbours with farm contracts and that block-crop from farm to farm will no longer be able to do that, which will lead to a number of extra road miles, inefficiency and environmental damage as a result of the amount of fuel burned and road traffic. That is not a desirable consequence and it will not benefit the environment at all.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that a solution to this problem would be that every single piece of land eligible to claim should grow three crops in three years, which would eliminate the problems of the mono-cropping of maize in Germany and, as I saw last week, between Paris and Strasbourg?

Mark Spencer: If I could extend my hon. Friend’s proposal to three crops in five years, that would allow for a normal cropping rotation of two weeks for oil seed or pulse, followed perhaps by a spring crop. We do not recognise some of the challenges that face UK agriculture today as we take more and more agricultural chemicals out of our toolbox. The rise of resistant black grass, certainly in the midlands and East Anglia, is a real challenge and we are going to have to allow spring cropping to deal with it.
	On the 5% greening, I am glad that the Government are allowing hedgerows to be used. We must, of course, move as quickly as we can to incorporate stone walls and other environmentally beneficial margins at the same time. If the mapping has to be digital, I remind Members of the challenges the previous Administration faced while trying to move to a mapping system. If I may use a Sherwood expression, the Minister must make sure his ducks are in a row and that, when we get to that system, farmers can get their payment as soon as possible. If there are delays, and if the system is complicated and farmers have to wait for their single farm payment, will the Minister engage with the banking sector to make sure that the banks support farmers through that break in cash-flow and that there is other such support?
	In summary, three things matter to this nation: that we are well fed; that the environment is maintained and protected; and that, in order to deliver those things, we have profitable farmers. At the end of this monumental process of CAP reform, I hope that we can deliver all three of them.

Julian Sturdy: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). I will not detain the House for long, but as a farmer by trade—I make hon. Members aware of my declaration of interests—I could not let this opportunity pass without commenting on CAP reform and its implications in England, and without congratulating the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its report.
	For me, CAP reform should always be about simplification, encouraging a level playing field and inspiring competition and innovation as we strive to
	break through plateauing crop yields and to stop declining livestock numbers, and as we endeavour to become more self-sufficient and to increase food production to meet the ever-increasing global population. However, I realise that a balance has to be struck on the environmental impact of modern-day farming, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of farmers see themselves as custodians of our countryside, and want it to be preserved for future generations.

Richard Drax: I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying. The gold standard in farming is actually set in this country. If only Europe would follow it.

Julian Sturdy: I entirely agree. UK farmers have set the gold standard for many years, and will continue to do so, but the issue is now about giving them the tools of support for them to take that next step forward.
	To go back to the environmental schemes, sadly, I fear that we are starting to tilt the balance of CAP reform too far from the primary aim of farmers, which is ultimately to produce food. For centuries, we have taken our peacetime food supply for granted, mainly because of how easy it was in the past to import food from abroad. Agricultural policy in both the UK and throughout the rest of the EU has moved away from maximising food production towards rewarding environmentally friendly practices.
	As the National Farmers Union has pointed out, we have only 36 harvests in which to increase our global food production to a level at which it can feed 9 billion people, and just 11 harvests before another billion people need to be fed. It may surprise some hon. Members, but I will be in my late 70s when we reach the 36th harvest. What that shows is that we only get one chance a year to advance crop yields, and the number of years is counting down rapidly.
	I want to turn to the greening elements of CAP reform. With the ecological focus areas and what farmers will have to do to meet the 5% requirement—buffer strips, laying land fallow, catch crops, nitrogen-fixing crops and hedges, the inclusion of which I join many hon. Members in welcoming—it is probably not as bad as the farming community first feared, but some more detail is still to come out. By “detail”, I mean that the most important thing is to get clarity as soon as possible.
	Overall, the Government have definitely made the best of a bad job. We must have a practical approach to greening. Sadly, the three-crop rule is far from being an example of that practical approach. I am sure that it will prove to be a bureaucratic nightmare that serves no purpose and delivers no environmental benefit in the UK or across Europe.
	The UK is currently 68% self-sufficient in terms of food that can be produced here. Sadly, there has been a steady decline in that level over the past 20 years. Nearly a quarter of the food that is eaten in the UK is imported, when it could be produced here. Yields have levelled off and cereal, potato, orchard fruit and fresh vegetable production are well below their 1991 levels. CAP should give more weight to sustainable intensification because we have to produce more food on a finite amount of land in a sustainable way.
	The decline is not irreversible, as has been shown in the fresh fruit market, where the growth is driven largely by demand. British shoppers want to buy British produce
	and back British farmers, especially in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. According to a recent NFU survey, 76% of shoppers believe that supermarkets should sell more British produce.
	Ultimately, the best way to boost yields, increase production and ensure our future food security is to invest in cutting-edge technology. I am delighted by today’s announcement that the hard work of the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding local enterprise partnership has paid off. Sadly, I was not called in the statement earlier, so I thought that I would take this opportunity to comment on it. My constituency will benefit from three new Government-backed projects to facilitate the provision of cutting-edge agricultural technology. The £11-million investment in the food science campus at Sand Hutton will create 800 new jobs in agri-food research and product testing. The £8-million investment in the BioVale initiative at the university of York will provide a biotechnology cluster that will host a range of high-tech industrial biotechnology companies, creating a further 500 highly-skilled jobs. The £1-million investment in Askham Bryan college, where young farmers learn their craft, will enable a new state-of-the-art training centre and engineering centre of excellence to be constructed.
	We have to be upfront about the fact that it will remain a challenge to feed the growing global population. However, such investment demonstrates the Government’s commitment to meeting that rising challenge. It will ensure that research is carried out in close collaboration with the farming community, so that it benefits the businesses on the ground and delivers a far-sighted, coherent, joined-up approach to the future challenges of food security. The investment will deliver growth and jobs across my region. Most importantly, it will help to give the UK the competitive edge that it needs to unlock the potential in the agriculture sector, to become a world leader in combating the growing threat to food security, and to set the gold standard.
	In conclusion, like many other Members, I welcome the young farmers’ scheme. Sadly, I do not fall into that category any more. I also welcome the moving of the funding up the hill. That move is long overdue, but I welcome it. Like a number of Members, I still have concerns over the bureaucratic nature of the new scheme. My fear for the long term is that if we continue to pump taxpayers’ money into agri-environmental schemes that take land out of production when food insecurity is an ever-growing problem, and food prices rise on the back of that, there will come a point when there is a public backlash and the Government of the day could ultimately pay the price.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am delighted to take part in this very important debate.
	I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for providing a comprehensive analysis of her Committee’s report in relation to CAP. She took it a stage further with some detailed technical points to which I am sure the Minister will respond. She also raised issues relating to broadband access to the new IT system, which will in many ways be universally rolled
	out overnight. There are great concerns about that. The issue was picked up by other hon. Members, including former Ministers, was digital by default.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) also raised that issue and asked how people would be able to access it when it is the only game in town. She spoke with passion about the financial and IT challenges facing her hill farmers, pointing out that 40% of them have no access to rural broadband. She called for something that I think we can all agree on: a useable and farmer-friendly system of payments.
	The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), with his expertise in the Department, bemoaned, rightly, the lack of progress on real reform. He supported the idea of moving payments uphill—I think that that has universal support across the Chamber, with many hon. Members speaking to that point—and described the three-crop rule, another matter raised by many hon. Members, as pointless and bureaucratic. It has received universal condemnation not only from farmers but from environmentalists too.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) spoke up for direct payments to support hard-pressed farmers. I think that at one point he was talking against modulation of pillar two, but he then flipped it around and said that there could, and perhaps should, be common cause between environmental groups and farming organisations to argue for greater pillar two payments to support very hard-pressed farmers. That was an interesting twist at the end.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), in a very good contribution, said in response to an intervention that we are limited in how much we can decide. I will come on to that in a moment, but I think that even with this mish-mash, as it was described by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire, there is scope for some decisions within England and in the other nations and regions.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) praised the CAP, praised farmers and praised Ministers—it was a very praiseworthy speech. He spoke well for his constituents and farmers.
	The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) opened his remarks by calling for a balance to be struck between the environment and farming and food security. That relates to the gist of what I want to talk about in a moment. It is fair to say that although there has been praise in various areas, there has also been a feeling of weary resignation among many of the contributions tonight. I think the phrase he used was “the best of a bad job”. I say to Members on all sides that in the next stage of reform we really have to do better, go further, take a lead and do a much better job.
	This round of CAP reform has been criticised by all sides. Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers Union until February this year, complained last year that the Secretary of State had disadvantaged farmers with his stance on CAP negotiations. He complained that the Secretary of State had come back with
	“less than he started with”
	for British farmers. The NFU described the round last year as “disappointing” and as a “missed opportunity”.
	The newly-elected NFU president, Meurig Raymond said more recently that we now have
	“a CAP package which has huge practical hurdles for all concerned in agriculture. It’s not the promised simplification; policy measures distort farmers’ commercial decisions and do little to help us gear-up to the long-term food production and environmental challenges which we know are ahead.”
	The criticisms from farming unions come from one perspective. Environmental organisations come from another viewpoint, but they have also derided CAP reform. In particular, they have derided the greening measures as so much “greenwash”. The greening proposals linked to direct payments are described as
	“so vague as to be useless”
	in a study by the authoritative journal Science, which estimates that as many as nine out of 10 farms would be exempt from key greening measures.

Mark Spencer: As the hon. Gentleman commented, I am an optimist and I was optimistic in my speech, but surely he must recognise the challenges of linking agricultural systems such as those in Greece, where it is so arid it is only possible to grow olives, and the large plains of East Anglia?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. That is why it is essential that the framework works in respect of what CAP reform has always set out to do—to break the link between pure production subsidy and the targeting of the subsidy at public goods, increased innovation and productivity, and not just production. It cannot be a one-size-fits-all model. The framework has to be there at an EU level, but the implementation at the level of the nation state is critical. We should not be afraid to take the lead on that and to try to get our balance right as between the environment, farming and food security.
	The conservation director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Martin Harper, observed that the proposals
	“failed to maximise the amount of money that it could have invested in wildlife-friendly farming and now it has made the greening measure meaningless.”
	So we have “meaningless” and “useless” from the perspective of environmental organisations; and “deeply disappointed” and “a missed opportunity” from the perspective of farming unions. A change is needed in Europe and in the UK on how CAP is done. We need to show real leadership and real direction on both farm productivity and sustainability—it is not happening.
	The key question is whether the more than £15 billion annual subsidy payment to farming in the UK—and £11.5 billion in England specifically—provides the best value for taxpayers’ money. A study last year suggested that sensitively adjusting the focus of the subsidy in the UK to enhance environmental and public goods, including things like flood alleviation, rather than purely units of production, could produce annual additional benefits of over £18 billion in the UK. The study did not take into account the additional benefits of cleaner air and cleaner water, which would further improve the net gains.
	The Secretary of State—one would think he would find favour with that sort of approach—said last year:
	“I do believe there is a real role for taxpayer’s money in compensating farmers for the work they do in enhancing the environment and providing public goods for which there is no market mechanism.”
	He also said specifically last year:
	“I believe that transferring the maximum 15% from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 would be the right thing to do where we can demonstrate it would deliver worthwhile and valuable outcomes for farming and society and contribute to rural economic growth and enhance the environment”.
	He was quite specific on that. When the Secretary of State said that repeatedly, wildlife and environmental groups had every right to be optimistic at least on pillar two funding, even with their disappointment on the greening elements of direct payments. As the RSPB said in its response to the consultation earlier this year:
	“We…welcome the Secretary of State’s assertion that Pillar II ‘unquestionably represents the better use of taxpayers money’”,
	and it went on to urge the Government to
	“follow through on their intention to maximise the benefits that Rural Development can deliver.”
	The Secretary of State, then, was unequivocal, unyielding and unbowed all the way through—until he crumbled, U-turned and settled on 12%. I have to ask why he was outflanked and outgunned by other forces; what happened to his unequivocal stance?
	The Government have signalled that they will review the situation in 2017, but I have to say that this looks like a smokescreen to cover the Secretary of State’s embarrassment at being forced to retreat from the repeatedly stated 15% modulation that he had repeatedly promised. That is not the only sign of weakness either, as the decisions on degression and capping of CAP are also spectacularly lacking in ambition and vision.

Jesse Norman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot, I am afraid; I do not have time.
	The Secretary of State’s minimalist position, choosing to go no further than the bare minimum prescribed by the European proposals, shows a worrying lack of leadership as well as a depressing lack of ambition for the best use of public money. Farming unions and landowning associations must understand—I hope they do—and have to engage with the growing public discontent of hard-pressed people and families who face a cost-of-living crisis at public money going to some of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in the country on the basis of the size of land that they farm.
	Last year, more than 35 of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in the UK claimed over €1 million each a year in farm subsidies. A couple of hundred others claimed in excess of €300,000 a year. That is divorced from the reality of what we have heard about today—the reality of small-scale upland farmers struggling to get by; the reality of medium-sized mixed, traditional family farms that are vital to the fabric of our rural economy struggling to compete; or the reality of tenant farmers struggling to get their first foot on the rung of purchasing land against a backdrop of rising land prices fuelled by lucrative subsidies. It is certainly a world away from squeezed UK consumers facing rising food bills, and the exponential growth in food banks in every town and village in the country.
	There might be some rationale if the biggest payments were tied to additional investment in agricultural innovation, to productivity improvements, to encouraging new entrants to farming, to pioneering environmental improvements in large-scale arable agri-businesses, or indeed to any marginal improvement. However, those payments are
	not for “additionality”; they are for scale and units of production, pure and simple. They are a reward for being big, and the bigger you are, the more European money—I am sorry; public money—you get.
	As long as there is still subsidy flowing through the common agricultural policy to farmers across the EU, we must ensure that the right share of that funding comes to our farmers in the UK, but placing rigorous demands on the highest CAP payments is about demanding more—in productivity, environmental innovation and entry to farming—for the public money that is spent on the very biggest of the biggest subsidy recipients.
	This is a value-for-money argument, and a fairness argument. I am talking about fairness for smaller and tenant farmers who lose out as the big money goes to the biggest landowners, fairness for the public who want real and transparent value for the money that they pay out each year, and fairness for this and future generations who are concerned about the environment, about the countryside that they love, and about sustainable agricultural production.
	It is time to challenge the accepted wisdom, and to shake off any sense of the cosy complacency adopted by the Secretary of State. We must not assume that this is the way it must be. We can change things for the better for farmers, for the public, and for the good of the nation. If we do not do so, the voices of discontent over CAP payments will grow and grow. We need to do better than this.
	Let me end by again thanking the Select Committee for the very good report that was introduced by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the detailed points that have been made.

George Eustice: It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber with so many fellow farmers. I have heard many of them declare their interests this evening. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate, and thank members of the Select Committee for their report.
	Let me begin by saying a little about the approach that the Government took during the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) explained very clearly the difficulty that we experienced. We set out to secure a common agricultural policy that was simpler and greener, but despite the best endeavours of my predecessors and a very talented negotiating team, we have ended up with a CAP that is more complex because it was not possible to move the European Commission, or indeed sufficient numbers of other member states, to our position. Our view all along had been that we should keep pillar one—the single farm payments—as simple as possible, and that pillar two was the right option to deliver for the agri-environment.
	There are two key issues about which farmers are expressing concern. One is the issue of the three-crop rule, which will affect at least 7% of farmers; the other is the issue of the environmental focus areas and some of the administrative burdens connected with them.
	It is important to note the successes that my predecessors achieved in the negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) asked what had been my achievements. I have to say that I was not involved in the negotiations, so the credit for what we achieved should go to my predecessors. However, when it came to the three-crop rule, we did manage to increase the threshold to holdings with 30 hectares or more. We did manage to get the Commission to accept that there should be a distinction between spring barley and winter barley, or spring wheat and winter wheat. And we did manage to move the Commission away from its initial proposal for action that would have been very intrusive—looking at farmers’ incomes to see exactly how much they were earning from agriculture—and, instead. to establish a negative list to remove, for instance, airports, railways and golf courses. So there were successes in the negotiations.
	On implementing the CAP, however, we have tried to stay true to that basic stance that we adopted during the negotiations: first, we should keep the implementation of pillar one as simple as possible so farmers can implement this in the most flexible way that works for their own individual holding; and, secondly, we should take the environment very seriously, and we want to deliver for the environment through pillar two—through the agri-environment schemes for which this country has built up an admirable track record.

Jesse Norman: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the shadow Minister should be so strong in his condemnation of the position the Government have ended up with through these negotiations, without in any way spelling out what the Labour party would do on any of the issues?

George Eustice: Well, I think there was quite a degree of consensus. I suppose we have to recognise that the last Government gave up a chunk of our rebate supposedly in order to get CAP reform, but that did not work either. I want to stay on the substance of the issue before us this evening, however.
	In terms of applying this basic approach of keeping the pillar one payments as simple as possible, when it came to greening we were clear we wanted to have the flexibility to allow farmers, for instance, to use hedges to count towards their environmental focus areas.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The inclusion of hedgerows as being eligible for pillar two payments is one of the Government’s successes. On that point, while many areas of the country have hedgerows as field boundaries, there are other areas, such as the Cotswolds, that have stone walls as field boundaries. May I ask him to press the Commission hard that those sorts of landscape features should also be included for payment?

George Eustice: There were serious administrative difficulties in terms of allowing hedgerows and all landscape features to count towards the environmental focus area, because each one has to be mapped, and we took the decision in the end that hedgerows were so important to many parts of the country that in the first year we should include those hedgerows and endeavour to get the mapping done, and where it could not be done in year one—we have three years to complete the mapping—
	farmers would self-declare the hedgerows. We do not rule out adding things like stone walls in years two or three, once we have got hedgerows in place. The task of mapping every single individual feature on every farm is an enormous one, however, and we therefore wanted to start first with hedges, before moving on to things such as dry stone walls.

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Eustice: I am going to try to make progress, I am afraid, and I will address many of the points my hon. Friend made if I have time to get to them.
	On the agri-environment schemes, we have been clear that 87% of the pillar two budget will go on the new environmental land management scheme. At the higher end, the scheme will be broadly similar to the existing higher level stewardship scheme, but we will also have an additional rate that has more requirements and obligations than the existing entry level stewardship scheme, and which is more proactive and is almost a middle rate. These will be more targeted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire raised concerns that this would effectively lead to white areas or deserts where there would be no such support. Alongside this scheme we intend to deal with the problem of so-called white areas by ensuring that there will be directed options right around the country so that whole areas of the country will not be excluded, and grants to support the planting of woodland, for instance, will be universally available.
	Many Members touched on matters relating to the three-crop rule, which will cause difficulty for some farmers—up to around 7%, possibly more. We gave serious consideration to advancing what is called a national certification scheme—a nationally designed scheme that would achieve the same thing—because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, the three-crop rule does not in itself guarantee crop rotation. Indeed, there are all sorts of anomalies, not least that a cabbage and a cauliflower are regarded as the same crop botanically as far as the EU is concerned, and there will be lots of similar complications to work through. When we looked at the alternatives, however, we found that they were all more complicated and even more difficult to administer than that which was already on the table.
	A number of hon. Members have mentioned the uplift to the single farm payment, which is important. It recognises the value we place on upland and moorland farmers, not just as custodians of the countryside, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, but as food producers. We are, therefore, equalising the basic payment for upland farmers and lowland farmers, and we will almost double the rate for moorland farmers to about €70 per hectare.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a number of issues, the first of which related to commons. We understand the concerns about the commons register, which has always been the starting point for the mapping of commons. There are disallowance risks in departing too far from the system we have had in place to date, but I can confirm that in addition to starting with that existing commons register, the RPA will utilise other information available to it, such as aerial photography, to help ensure that those who are entitled to claim on common land can.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the issue of disallowance, and I can confirm that we have set aside a figure of 2% to plan for that. It is our aspiration to get to zero disallowance, but the way in which the disallowance scheme works is incredibly complicated and convoluted. Frequently, the disallowance we get is through no fault of our own; it is often because the European Commission does not understand its own rules, and we can get into very protracted arguments. For instance, the fruit and veg scheme has been notorious as a cause of disallowance. The system is very complicated and I do not think we will ever be able to eliminate disallowance altogether.
	A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, have highlighted the issue of the modulation rate—the inter-pillar transfer. We have made it clear that we will modulate at 12% initially and have a review in 2016. She asked what the criteria for that will be. There are two basic criteria, the first of which is whether there is sufficient demand forthose agri-environment schemes to warrant an increase in that budget. That links to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). The second is an assessment of the impact on the competitiveness of British agriculture.
	Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have raised concerns about the new IT system. The existing RPA computer system is simply not fit for purpose and we need a new system. The new common agricultural policy is far more complicated, and there are coefficients attached to some environmental focus areas. Somebody growing peas or beans will find that that counts for only 0.7% towards their EFA—0.7% of the area declared—whereas for hedges there is a coefficient of up to 10 times the area of the hedge. The idea that we could do this by drawing things on maps with pencil, as we do under the existing system, and sending that in to the RPA is simply not credible. We therefore believe that to cope with the new system we have to have a digital by default approach and to have everyone adding their data by computer, because that will be simpler.
	I completely understand the point that many hon. Members have made about broadband access. We are investing £500 million through BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—and a further £250 million in phase 2. We have a third fund of £10 million to pilot creative ideas for those really hard-to-reach areas. In addition, we will have an assisted digital package. We will send paper guidance to every farmer in year 1, so although they will not have a paper application form, they will have paper guidance. That guidance will include detailed information on our digital offer. The crucial thing for those lacking the computer literacy to complete their form online or those who have no broadband access is that we will be setting up a number of digital service centres right around the country, particularly targeted at those areas where there is a problem. Farmers will, thus, be able physically to take their information into an office, which will have privacy and be discreet, and work with an RPA agent to enter that information on the system. That is the right thing for everyone. It is right for those farmers, because it removes the risk of them getting penalties and disallowance.

Helen Goodman: rose—

George Eustice: I will finish now, because we are nearly out of time. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire highlighted the issues of appeals and a proportionate system. I can tell him that I am now the one who looks at those appeals, this issue is close to my heart, and we are examining it and reviewing it as I speak. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) talked about pillar two, and said that we still needed those single farm payments of pillar one. Part of the 2016 review will examine the competitiveness of agriculture.
	In conclusion, we have introduced a CAP that is more complicated than we would have liked, but in the way that we are implementing it, we are staying true to the approach that we took in negotiations to make it as simple as possible
	Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
	The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54)

Estimates 2014-15
	 — 
	Department for Work and Pensions

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £45,438,318,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £74,721,000 be authorised for use for capital
	purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £44,850,071,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £968,601,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233 of Session 2013-14,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £371,350,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,308,388,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
	The Speaker then put the Question on the outstanding Estimate (Standing Order No. 55)

Estimates 2014-15

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2015:
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £256,135,013,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1233, HC 1231, HC 1208, HC 1186 and HC 1234 of Session 2013-14, and HC 124 of this Session.
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £32,926,583,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £214,518,524,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament—(Mr Gauke.)
	Ordered,That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, 2014-15;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Nicky Morgan, Mr David Gauke and Andrea Leadsom bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2015; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2014.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Ukraine and Russia: Eu Restrictive Measures

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; and welcomes the Government’s support for the measures proposed by the European Commission to enable a swift response, if needed, to continuing efforts by the Russian Federation to threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5, 6 and 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
	That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Anonymous Registration) (Northern Ireland) regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
	That the draft Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Donations to Candidates (Anonymous Registration) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Co-operative Societies

That the draft Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 14 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Mobile Homes Act 2013 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 14 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. .—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 11 to 14 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.
	That the draft African Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.
	That the draft International Development Association (Seventeenth Replenishment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.
	That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

Ordered,
	That Mr Nigel Evans be a member of the Backbench Business Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

HEALTH

Ordered,
	That Robert Jenrick be a member of the Health Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

MENINGITIS B VACCINATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the important matter of meningococcal B—or MenB—vaccines in this short debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for kindly responding on behalf of the Government. I appreciate that I have dragged her to these green Benches at a time when she might well be negotiating with the drugs companies and it might be difficult for her to respond to every one of my points. Nevertheless, she will understand that I must make them on behalf of my constituents and other members of the public.
	There will be a number of hon. Members in this House with constituents whose lives have been affected by meningitis B. I have constituents who have had to deal with the suffering and loss caused by meningitis B, which is why I am here today further to raise the need for a national roll-out of the vaccination. My constituents, Dr and Mrs Turner, who are here today, tragically lost their 19-year-old granddaughter on new year’s day this year. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, their granddaughter, Emily, and her parents are constituents of yours. Emily’s uncle is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray).
	Meningitis B is a comparatively rare disease, with about 1,800 cases in the UK each year. According to the charity Meningitis UK, however, many thousands of people die as a result of contracting the illness. The infection progresses rapidly and can lead to permanent disability or death within 24 hours of the symptoms becoming evident. That is sadly what happened to Emily. One in 10 people who contract the infection will tragically die despite the treatment that is available today. Of those who survive, one in five will have devastating life-long disability such as brain damage, hearing loss or limb damage.
	Infants under the age of one year are disproportionately affected by meningitis B, with the number of cases peaking at the age of about five to six months. However, there is unfortunately another peak during late adolescence when students mix at university. Those are the two age groups that are most likely to contract meningitis B and the fact that there is another peak later in life highlights the need for a vaccine during infancy to protect people from lifelong suffering from this potentially devastating disease.
	Parents up and down the country were given a sense of hope when in January 2013 a vaccine was licensed in the UK as well as in Europe and the US. The Bexsero vaccine was developed by the drug company Novartis and protects against approximately 73% of the different strains of meningitis B with apparently limited side effects. That was obviously very welcome, but there have been extremely long and costly delays in implementing any vaccination programme. The vaccine was turned down by the NHS after being considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
	The passion felt by many members of the public that the vaccination should have been implemented straightaway has resulted in various petitions urging the Government
	to do so. The charity Meningitis Now, which I heartily and sincerely congratulate on its constant campaigning, delivered a petition of 36,000 signatures to Downing street. My constituents organised a petition of around 5,000 signatures and I had great pleasure in presenting that petition to Parliament earlier this evening.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this matter forward for consideration. Meningitis B numbers have halved in the past 25 years, but there is no room for complacency. Some of my constituents have experienced devastating effects from meningitis, so, as the MP for Strangford, my issue is whether the hon. Gentleman feels that the vaccine, when it becomes available, should be available to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I shall discuss later, this is obviously a big and costly undertaking for the NHS. As I am sure the Minister will mention later, there are delicate negotiations to be had, but if we start with babies—preferably babies under the age of 12 months—and then roll it out to students, the whole population will eventually have been vaccinated. Perhaps that will take too long, and once we have vaccinated those cohorts of the population, we might be able to find the money later to vaccinate other cohorts, but let us start, for goodness’ sake. In particular, vaccinating young babies would be an important start.
	In my view, and in the view of many others, the Bexsero vaccine should have been rolled out immediately. Doing so could have prevented around 600 cases of meningitis B, and the associated 200 deaths between January 2013 and now. Although there have been delays in rolling out this vaccine on a national scale in the UK, it has been available privately since December 2013 for parents able to pay the high price, and it has been used across several university campuses in the United States. I am sure the House would agree that it is unsatisfactory that where a vaccine has been licensed and is available for use, only those who can afford to pay can get it.

Margaret Ritchie: I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on achieving this debate on an extremely important subject that impacts on many of our constituents. I have been tabling questions to the Minister about this. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important issue is the time scale for the roll-out of this vaccine? I agree that the important age cohort is infants, and that vaccination should be rolled out to other age groups later.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The key thing that we want to hear from the Minister tonight is an honest assessment of when the roll-out of the vaccine is likely to happen. That information will be particularly important to parents of young babies.
	Within the announcement that there would be vaccine as part of childhood immunisation, the Department for Health stated that the Bexsero vaccine would be made available—I quote from a letter dated 25 April 2014 to me from the Minister—
	“subject to it being made available by the manufacturer at a cost-effective price”.
	That is the crunch point, as that will be a very large cost to the national health service, and the Minister needs to negotiate a good low price so that immunisation does not become prohibitively expensive. If anyone would like to see a copy of that letter, they should email me at cliftonbrowng@parliament.uk and I will willingly send them a copy. I am told that I am not allowed to deposit it in the Library, otherwise I would do so.
	There are three things that I would like to ask the Minister to do. First, what does her Department consider to be a “cost-effective price” for something that will save many lives in the future? Surely it is impossible to put a monetary value on young lives. I urge her not to base her decision solely on how much the vaccine will cost, but to look at the hugely positive effects that implementing a vaccine will have, especially when one considers the trauma that parents have to go through and the devastating pain of losing a young child suddenly within 24 hours. Indeed, there are large costs associated with not vaccinating, as it is estimated that every case of MenB which leads to a severe disability will cost the Government £2 million to £3 million during the life of that child.
	Secondly, the announcement made in March confirmed that the vaccine would be introduced only for infants at two months old, with a limited catch-up period for babies up to four months. Given that, as I said earlier, cases peak at around five or six months and the illness remains most common in babies under one year, I urge the Minister to consider implementing the vaccine for all infants under one year old at the time of introduction, to ensure that we protect as many babies as possible. In her response tonight could the Minister inform me of the difference in cost between providing the vaccine for all two-month-old babies, with a catch-up for all four-month-old babies at the time of introducing the vaccine, and the cost of providing it for all 12-month-old infants? I appreciate that she might not have those figures this evening. If she does not know the figures, I would be grateful if she would undertake a cost-benefit analysis of vaccinating all 12-month-old babies and let me have the figures. That would be helpful.
	Thirdly, as I said earlier, there is another peak of individuals contracting meningitis B during late adolescence, as my constituent’s granddaughter sadly did. At university, people’s lifestyle is totally different; they mix and get different germs, and unfortunately that seems to mean that they are more susceptible to this dreadful meningitis B. There is therefore a strong case for a roll-out of Bexsero to university students to prevent the spread among that age group. As I have said, some campuses in the US have already administered the vaccine to stop outbreaks of meningitis across the student body. When evaluating the costings, will the Minister please embark on a cost-benefit analysis of providing the vaccine to all 18-year-olds in full-time education?
	The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended a study to inform its decision on whether to recommend a vaccine for adolescents as the second most at-risk group of people. In her letter to me of 25 April, the Minister told me that the Department is
	“considering how best to proceed with this”.
	I urge her to instigate the study as soon as possible to prevent any further delays. Once it has been decided how to develop the study, people must be recruited to it
	as soon as possible, and once the results are available, they should be presented to the JCVI without delay, so that a recommendation can be made quickly. Only with speedy action and decisions can we prevent any more unnecessary deaths and suffering as a result of meningitis B in this group.
	I would like to end where I started. Thousands of families suffer from the devastating effects of meningitis B, but we now have a preventive vaccine, which is fantastic news. The vaccine has been licensed for 18 months without being rolled out by the NHS. That delay has had a devastating effect on families of individuals who have contracted the infection and died or become seriously disabled. Now that the JCVI has given a positive recommendation for roll-out of the vaccine, that should happen swiftly. I urge the Minister to conclude rapid negotiations with Novartis. I ask the drug company to enter those negotiations with the Government in a spirit of good will, so that we can get this vaccine rolled out as quickly as possible. I also urge the Minister to consider expanding the current proposal of vaccination to include children up to one year old and adolescents, so that we cover all high-risk groups.
	It is now possible to prevent further tragedies similar to that of Emily and thousands of others. We have experienced too many delays already. Let us end those delays, make quick progress, and find ourselves in a situation in which parents are confident that their child will be safe from the devastating effects of this dreadful infection. Every day’s delay is a potential life lost. Please will the Minister act as quickly as she can?

Jane Ellison: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate on the meningococcal B—or MenB, as I think we will call it—vaccination. It is a hugely important topic to which he has done great justice. Obviously, this is a very topical public health issue. He is not alone in this House in having had constituents who have felt the devastating effects of MenB, and he put his case passionately; I certainly respect that. Of course, we recognise the devastating impact that MenB disease can have, and Members have described it. It is often known among clinicians and parents as a parent’s greatest fear.
	Children aged less than five years are most affected by MenB. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the peak of the disease is in infants aged 6 to 12 months. MenB is fatal for about one in 10 of those who develop meningitis and/or septicaemia. With early diagnosis and treatment, most people can make a full recovery, but around a tenth of survivors have major physical or neurological disabilities, including amputation, deafness, epilepsy and learning difficulties, so it is truly devastating. It is, thankfully, relatively uncommon, with an average of about 1,000 cases per year in England and Wales over the last decade. Incidence has been decreasing in recent years, as was alluded to in an intervention, but it is unpredictable and it could rise again quickly. That is why the advent of a vaccine that could provide protection against MenB is so welcome.
	If the House will indulge me, I will go over the history of the investigation into the vaccine and the work of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It is worth noting for the record that the JCVI is an
	independent departmental expert committee that provides scientific advice to inform policy making. It is a statutory standing advisory committee for England and Wales under the National Health Service Act 1977. It has no statutory basis for providing advice to Ministers in Scotland or Northern Ireland, although Health Departments in those countries may choose to accept the committee’s advice or recommendations, and they generally do.
	In anticipation of a MenB vaccine being developed and licensed, the JCVI began work to consider a possible MenB immunisation strategy in 2010. The MenB vaccine Bexsero, manufactured by Novartis, was licensed by the European Medicines Agency in January 2013. The JCVI’s work before that date enabled it to provide advice at the earliest opportunity, so it is not quite right to say that there has been a great delay. The work had begun in anticipation to try to get us ahead of the situation. The JCVI looked to base its recommendations on the best available evidence for efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
	Following the licensing of the vaccine, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health requested a recommendation from the JCVI on the use of a MenB vaccine under the provisions of the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009, which provide the basis for the public’s right of access to national immunisation programmes in the NHS constitution. The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to implement a recommendation from the JCVI on a new immunisation programme, so far as reasonably practicable, where cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated.
	The Secretary of State and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), subsequently met to discuss the MenB vaccine with the national meningitis charities Meningitis Now and the Meningitis Research Foundation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and other Members in previous debates, I pay tribute to those charities for their excellent work.
	The JCVI published an interim position statement on the MenB vaccine for consultation in July 2013 to assist it in making a complete assessment of the available evidence. That interim statement did not recommend a national immunisation programme because of uncertainties about the vaccine’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In response to its consultation, the JCVI received new and recently published evidence on the MenB vaccine. The JCVI also considered comments and queries received in response to its interim position statement. Many of those comments and queries followed similar lines to those raised by my hon. Friend and made the same points on the severity of the impact on children who survive MenB. All the evidence and submissions led to further detailed analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a MenB immunisation programme.
	Having considered the outcome of the further analysis at its meeting in February 2014, the JCVI recommended on 21 March that there should be a carefully planned national MenB immunisation programme for infants, starting at the age of two months. The JCVI made it clear that that recommendation was subject to the vaccine being available at a cost-effective price lower than the list price of £75 a dose.
	There was some rather inaccurate media reporting when the JCVI’s recommendation was published that suggested that external influences might have led the
	JCVI to change from the position in its interim statement. The JCVI is an independent committee that greatly values its independence, so I remind Members that, in response to its consultation, the JCVI received new and recently published evidence and relevant comments that led to further analysis and the recommendation that the programme should be cost-effective subject to vaccine price. That is why the JCVI’s position shifted; there was no question of external interference.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is presenting her reply. From what she has said so far, the only issue seems to be the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine. Will she give any indication of when the cost-effectiveness issue is likely to be resolved so that a roll-out can begin for two-month-old babies, with a catch up for four-month-old babies?

Jane Ellison: Rather frustratingly, for me and for my hon. Friend—he alluded to this in his speech—I am not in a position to answer that, because to do so would be to pre-empt the stage we have reached with the issue. What I can say is that this country has world-leading vaccination programmes and a great deal of experience in planning them and rolling them out very effectively. I can assure him that all our experience would be brought to bear in a positive way at that stage. I cannot pre-empt either the timing or the price, but he can be assured of the expertise that sits behind the UK’s vaccination programme.
	The Government welcomed and accepted the JCVI’s recommendation and hope that the UK will be the first country in the world to launch a national immunisation programme for MenB. As I have just said, that would continue our successful track record in providing a world-leading national immunisation programme.
	I acknowledge that some people might say—I would not blame them—that cost-effectiveness should not be an issue when talking about a vaccine to protect very young children from a potentially fatal disease. However, it is important to consider cost-effectiveness so that money spent on new immunisation programmes does not use finite NHS funds that would otherwise provide more overall benefit to the wider population if spent on other treatments or services. We all recognise that those decisions are not easy, which is why so much expert thought and careful consideration go into them.
	My hon. Friend asked when immunisation would start, and I have explained that we are not in a position to comment on that, but we are in a position to draw on great expertise when we face that issue. As I have said, the JCVI recommended that a MenB vaccine be introduced but only at a cost-effective price, below the list price published by Novartis. Therefore, the first essential step is to agree a cost-effective price for the vaccine with the manufacturer. We want to agree that with Novartis as
	soon as possible so that children can benefit from the vaccine, but we need to ensure NHS funds are used effectively, as I have explained. We must also follow due process on spending approvals within the Government before launching any procurement. That is quite a complex process involving a detailed business case.
	We see the onus as being on the manufacturer to respond positively to the JCVI’s recommendation so that we can purchase the vaccine at a price that represents good value for money for the NHS. If we can obtain the vaccine at a cost-effective price, the introduction of the new vaccination programme would need to be carefully planned with the manufacturer and the NHS so that parents can be confident of a sufficient and sustainable supply of vaccine, with arrangements in place in the NHS for it to be provided and for clear information to be given to parents to enable them to make an informed choice.
	I hope that it will give my hon. Friend some reassurance to know that last year the NHS introduced three new vaccination programmes and another one was rescheduled, which demonstrates that that is something we can do. That large expansion in the national immunisation programme was unprecedented. We must ensure that the NHS is fully equipped to be able to deliver another programme safely before introducing it. We hope to be able to start the procurement process soon and to purchase the vaccine at a cost-effective price.
	My hon. Friend asked about adolescents. The JCVI’s advice was that research was needed on the effectiveness in adolescents of preventing transmission of infection. I am aware of the cases on US campuses to which he alluded. The Department is considering how best to commission the necessary work. If I have any update on that situation, I will write to interested Members after the debate. In addition, I will give an update on where we are in the process as soon as I am in a position to do so. If the procurement is successful, we will be in a position to make firm plans for the introduction of the new MenB immunisation programme. At that point I will be able to say a lot more. I accept that it is frustrating that I cannot say as much as he would like.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important subject. All of us, as constituency MPs, and certainly those of us who are Health Ministers, are extremely aware of the importance that many parents place on this subject and the fear that MenB raises for some many people. He was right to ask me to come to the House and address the subject, even if I cannot do so in quite as much detail as he would like. I look forward to updating the House in due course and will do my very best to ensure that I keep all interested Members fully up to date as we progress with this important process.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.